credibility. the one by the client of mr. avenatti makes extraordinary claims that our democratic colleagues are embarrassed to say publicly because they demonstrate this is a partisan circus. this is not about substance. this is about smears. >> can i ask the senator to sum up. the reason is because i'd like to give everybody a chance to speak. >> this committee has given dr. ford and judge kavanaugh full and fair opportunity to lay out their views. i will say unfortunately the conduct of our democratic colleagues, it's been clear that this has been all about politics. all about delaying this confirmation until after the election. hoping that they win the senate

in the election and then keeping this supreme court seat vacant until 2021. every member before the committee started said they opposed judge kavanaugh before a single thing started. not only that, this allegation, the ranking member of this committee had it in writing on july 30th. if that had been reported, this committee has a process to investigate. it is confidential and the fbi could have participated back on july 30th. that we could have had a hearing that is closed, that is not drags either of these individuals through the mud. that's the way the process should have worked. the testimony yesterday from dr. ford is that the only people who had copies of the letter were herself, her lawyers, representative eshoo and the

ranking members of this committee. neither handed the letter over. that leaves the only conclusion is that the letter was leaked by either of the two democratic members of congress or their staff or someone else to whom they gave it. if only four people have it and two did not give it, the other two are the only possible sources. that unfortunately demonstrates a cynicism, a willingness to smear dr. ford if it helps politically delay this nomination. i think we have an obligation to be fair, to be impartial, to listen to the evidence and weigh the evidence. that's the right thing to do. that's what i hope this committee does and that's what i hope the full senate does. >> senator coons. >> thank you, mr. chairman. yesterday was an important and a difficult day.

a long day for dr. ford, for judge kavanaugh, for the senate judiciary committee, for our nation. i will say briefly at the outset before yesterday began, i prayed. i prayed for dr. ford and her family. i prayed for judge kavanaugh. i prayed for our chairman and ranking member. i prayed for our president. i prayed for all who would watch yesterday who were victims of sexual assault and i prayed for all who would watch, unsrp if we could conduct respectfully. i am struck that in the twitter fuelled, smash mouth politics of our day, we must ask, what about our conduct? what about our conduct would encourage anyone to come forward with credible allegations of sexual assault, to seek a nomination to a federal court or other position of trust or to

serve here? as a result i tonight will pray for our nation. the burden on this committee was to address, investigate, and resolve reasonable doubts as to credible allegations against the nominee before them. by that test, this committee has failed. i know we have heard strong words about many of our colleagues. my predecessor, long serving senator and former chairman, joe biden, has been quoted by many and misquoted at times. i want to share one thing he said to me when i began my service here. it is always appropriate to question another senator's policies. it is always appropriate to question another senator's priorities. it is never appropriate to question another senator's motives. there has been far too much of

that that happened in this process. in a way that frankly will make it very difficult for us to take off our partisan jerseys and at some point get back to the important work of finding solutions to the real challenges facing this country. what i have been searching for in this process is the facts. i recognize many of my colleagues on the other side do not see it that way. many of you have questions the timing of when this allegation surfaced and you have also said there are not enough facts corroborating dr. ford's testimony to ruin a good man. i strongly disagree with both of these points and want to explain why. the first i'm i learned of dr. ford's allegations that judge kavanaugh assaulted her was on september 12th. ranking if member feinstein disclosed this information to myself and other democrats only after reporters had learned of the letter dr. ford provided her congresswoman. i don't know how this information leaked. i regret that it did.

the decision whether to come forward should have been dr. ford's and dr. ford's alone. i cannot rule out that the person who leaked this information had a partisan agenda. i am certain ranking member fine desi stein and her staff did not leak it. long serving honorable colleagues have of hers questioned her motives. i know since the day my democratic colleagues and i learned of these allegations, we had one consistent request. to allow the fbi to investigate them in a nonpartisan, professional, even handed manner and deliver their findings so we could reach a conclusion. ranking member feinstein sent a letter requesting such an investigation. to suggest that senate staff interviews or letters from lawyers are an adequate substitute for a fact gathering

process is not credible and reflects a willful blindness to the disfuchkz of our institution. to my colleagues across the aisle. you know me. you know i try to be fair to those before us and i respect the process of those with whom i passionately disagree. if i were convinced this was nothing more than a partisan hit job and hold a position vacant, i would not stand for it. an investigation would be helpful because dr. ford's recollection shared with us so powerfully yesterday of her assault was searing, but incomplete. dr. ford testified credibly about painful memories she carried with her to this day. the feeling of a hand over her mouth and her not being able to breathe. the sound of laughter while she was pinned on a bed. the weight of a body on top of her, groping her, and the

feeling of relief fleeing the house. dr. ford testified with 100% certainty that the person who assaulted her was brett kavanaugh whom she knew through multiple a kwaptances and socialized with on multiple acquaintances. it is true that dr. ford cannot pinpoint the date or the time of the assault and the exact skploekz she did not tell anyone about the assault at that time. there is not an eyewitness who has been able to provide the details of this. all of which is typical of sexual assault. many experts have written how common it is for assault survivors to remember some facts with searing clarity and not others. that has to do with survival mode that turns on when we experience trauma. the vast majority delay or never disclose at all. one of the most striking thing for me has been the so far five,

five personal friends, acquai acquaintanc acquaintances, people i have known for years or decades who conveyed to me their experiences of sexual assault on this phone while this testimony was going on. that suggests that there is an ocean of pain in this nation not yet fully heard, not yet fully addressed and not yet appropriately resolved. i for one will not recount the refrain said by too many that it happened too long ago and in our nation, boys will be boys. we must do better than that and sets a better standard for our own families and our future. i worry sincerely about the message we are accepteding to assault survivors if we plow ahead with the nomination despite the seriousness of the allegations and i conveyed to my friends and colleagues that i wished we would take a one-week pause. one week only. not to spread this out past the

next election, not to pursue some partisan goal, but to allow a professional fbi interview with everyone who may have relevant information. starting, yes, with mark judge who obviously given the vote of this committee this morning will not be subpoenaed to appear before us. i will remind you briefly that many of those who came forward to support judge kavanaugh, including my own professor from yale law school and an organization i long belonged to, the american bar association have spoken up to request a thorough and professional background investigation. i think to ask for a week is not to ask for too much. when professor anita hill came forward, the white house cooperated and in four days, in four days, a hearing was put together with 22 witnesses. i think that's what dr. ford deserves. i think that's what her bravely deserves and i think that's what our nation deserves. i will not go through a long

point by point refutation of what we heard by colleagues, but let me say a few things about dr. ford's testimony. as i said, show bore the pain alone for far too long, but her memories did not stay hers alone. dr. ford told her now husband in 2002 and told therapists in 2012 and 2013. she told friends in 2013, 2017, 2018 and submitted testimony about all of that to this committee. dr. ford when she came forward yesterday had nothing gain and a lot to lose. she came forward to testify about her experience of assault and i'm going to use her words. she said i'm here today not because i want to be. i am terrified. i am here because i believe it's my civic duty to tell you what happened to me while brett kavanaugh and i were in high school. civic duty.

to tell the truth. what has always struck me is that dr. ford came forward to voice concerns before he was nominated. she reached out to her congresswoman anonymously and to the washington tip line as well when judge kavanaugh's name was on the short list. she was not lying in wait for a time to make a big reveal to sink a nominee. rather she wanted this information to get to the president before he made his selection so the president could pick someone else. i wish he had. judge kavanaugh justice unequivocally denied the allegations against him, but something he said repeatedly was not accurate. over and over again, he testified and we just heard it repeated here today, that dr. ford's account was refuted by three individuals she identified as being present. that's not the case and judge kavanaugh knows it. not recalling is not the same as

refuting. the issues saying they don't remember the gathering. of course none of these three people were assaulted that night. for two of them, it would be an unremarkable evening. just another casual summer among friends and leland kaiser said she believes dr. ford's account. a fact not acknowledged by my colleagues or judge kavanaugh. in my view the failure of this committee to subpoena mark judge who dr. ford identified as a witness and participant is a failure to get to the truth. we also have to face the reality that there are additional serious allegations brought in sworn statements by ms. ra mile an houred and swetnick. their claims have varying credibility, but deserve to be heard. i wish judge kavanaugh would have pointed to a short pause for the benefit of clearing his

own name. but i will say as i conclude, there is something much greater in my mind at stake. the fact that judge kavanaugh is nominated to the supreme court means it's not just about his credibility and the remaining concerns that i will carry forward. it's about the court's legitimacy. we are left with the reality that if his nomination goes forward after testimony full of rage and partisanship and vitriol without a brief pause for investigation into the serious allegations presented, his service may well have an asterisk. coming to the court will have reason to question the fairness of the institution and in my view, that is too great to impose in exchange for any one man. it is my hope that my colleagues, those who have not yet decided or declared their decision will join in a request to allow the fbi to do its important work and for this

committee to allow itself a time to get to the bottom of the remaining allegations. given the vote this morning, i know that is highly unlikely. i announced my opposition to judge kavanaugh after our previous rounds of hearings concluded. those hearings began without a declared position by many of my colleagues on this side. in the end, for me, it was judge kavanaugh's extreme views on presidential power that i engaged with him on that determined my vote on him. but for us to proceed today, without giving the thoughtful, serious, and thorough investigation of credible allegations before us is for this committee to fail to do its job. i pray that after today, we may yet find a way to work together because our community, our country, and our world deserves no less. thank you. >> i'm going to ask my colleagues on this side of the aisle if -- and i'm not going to

ask the democrats to do this, but could we kind of -- i only interrupted senator cruz. can we make sure to keep our remarks a little short so everybody can speak? senator kennedy. i guess i'm wrong. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i will do that. i wanted to respond first to a number of the comments that have been made about again, leading the dynamic of what this committee has done is. it has been said this committee has changed its procedure and this is the first time it conducted business in this way. again, as i said yesterday, that needs to be clarified and corrected. the fact is that when the fbi does the back ground investigation, it does just

that. a background investigation. it talks to people who may have information about the nominee and takes a statement from them and then delivers its package of investigative information to the white house, which passes it on to the committee. which is the report this committee receives from the fbi. it has been said that president bush reopened the fbi investigation when the anita hill information came out. my understanding is and if i'm wrong on this, mr. chairman, please correct me. my understanding is when you, as the chairman, found out about the information, that information also went to the fbi. perhaps the ranking member who gave the letter to the fbi, but the fbi was given the information. >> that is correct and they said to the white house in the usual way they do that they considered

it closed. >> first of all, the full letter, un redacted was given to the fbi and the fbi did what it does. i don't know what they did in the anita hill case did what it usually does. to reopen it, if you will, evaluate the letter, and again, i understand that the fbi closed it and sent the information to the white house as they did with the previous report before this allegation came up. is that correct, mr. chairman? >> the only thing i can verify is that the fbi did what they would usually do and they then -- and i don't know what that was. they probably would keep their own internal stuff to themselves, but they sent a lov cover letter to the white house

saying it was closed. >> they did whatever they do in the back ground check activities and resent an updated amount of information to the white house which the white house then forwarded to us. the process which has traditionally been followed in this committee was followed again. i believe immediately the chairman opened up an investigation by this committee. that also is customary practice and has been stated yesterday, but i will restate again. our committee investigative staff which is extensive and well trained has legal authorities similar to the types that fbi agents do such that when they conduct their investigations, the people who are interviewed and those who are reached out to by the committee are under penalty of a felony that could result in five years imprisonment if they don't respond honestly and correctly

to the questions. every one of the witnesses that was identified has been reached out to. some comments have been, well, they didn't submit themselves to a deposition or to some kind of a court process or something like that. as was very well explained by other colleagues, when a witness refuses to testify, the alternative is to try to get a statement from them, which the fbi does or the committee does. in this case, under penalty of felony were obtained by all of the witnesses. the argument here that there was some process followed that was not fair is simply inaccurate. the argument that the process followed was not the same as the committee followed in the past is also inaccurate. that's very critical. to turn to the issue at hand, yesterday we received hours and hours of testimony from two

witnesses. and both of them, frankly, made very strong cases. this committee is under the need to evaluate the testimony that was given and determine how it will judge or rule on -- on the obligation this committee has to give advice or consent. in this context, i came away believing that there had in fact been a sexual assault in dr. ford's past. as has been stated, it was not entirely clear when, where, and all of the circumstances, but there is no doubt in my mind that she truthfully testified that she had had a sexual assault and had been assaulted sexually in her past. i have to say, i also listened very carefully to judge

kavanaugh as he testified. i felt that the testimony he gave was also honest. he gave, i thought, very strong testimony that he was not there. so i think that this committee has to face the difficult task of what burden of proof does it apply? what standard does it apply in exercising the advice and consent that it gives? that's a very difficult thing that each one of us individually needs to face and deal with. as i've said, i don't feel that the evidence shows that judge kavanaugh was there that night. i believed his testimony. i believed dr. ford's testimony about the sexual assault. because of that, i will vote yes to move the nomination forward to the floor.

>> mr. chairman, this has been obviously my first process, my first time through a supreme court nomination process. i fought for years to be on this committee. it's the one i wanted to be on as soon as i got to the united states senate in 2013 and i made you aware as the ranking member. it has been an incredible experience. a lifetime dream to be a part of this committee, and sir, i have a lot of respect for you. some people on my side of the aisle have criticized me for the affection for which i have for you. you have been a partner. the members of the committee, senator hatch and youry yourself and senator leahy and feinstein,

you have been anchors to a time when the comedy was deeper and greater andself and senator leahy and feinstein, you have been anchors to a time when the comedy was deeper and greater and i find admirable within this institution. when a supreme court court vacancies happened, i i was one of the individuals i did not wait long before i announced my intentions to vote against judge kavanaugh. i did it for sincerely and deeply held beliefs. i felt this was a person that made it clear in that entire list of people prepared by the federal society and heritage foundation that this was a guy who spoke directly towards a view of presidential power and presidential immunities that in this perilous time where the

president is a subject of a criminal investigation that he was going to protect that president and said as much. make sure that the president was above the law in accountability. and sir, i learned a lot. i'm one of the guys that on this side of the aisle when my colleagues speak, i listen. i try to give them my full attention. and i don't always agree, but i have learned a lot from my colleagues and my friendships on the other side of the aisle, there have been times where i texted back and forth with people on the other side of the aisle. i respect them. and i fought hard during this process. i have given it everything i've god. i learned that being a football player that you fight hard for what you believe.

if you want to call that partisanship, fine. i have been exuberant in my beliefs and i learned a lot through this process. some of my comments have been referenced numerous times and i know that i have not been as precise and allowed my comments to be mischaracterized and i don't blame those people mischaracterizing my comments. i take responsibility and learned to be more precise. i talked to the issues and i talked to my values as much as i can. i travel around this country, calling for us respecting and seeing the dignity of republicans and democrats and recognizing as much as i can and i say it that patriotism is love of country. you can't love your countly unless you love all your fellow men and women. the goodness and the decency is

self evident and we demonize each others in ways that i will be and continue exemptionular of trying to get our dialogue to rise to something different and be a country that there is no democratic or republican way. there is only an american way. sir, you know, and i said this to you personally and think i said publicly that in the hardness with which i fight, i mean you no personal insult, but i said before dr. ford's charges came up, i say sincerely that i think the way this process was run was a sham. i used that word, sir. it was because we were evaluating someone for the highest court in the land with seeing such a small part of his relevant work product. i didn't understand how so much of his writing, approximately 90% of his relevant work product

was not being seen by the committee and controlled by a process that was so broken, so partisan. then, sir, i violated the rules that you put forward in this committee. willfully and knowingly and accepting the consequences of that. i did so because the documents that were being with held from the public i felt the public had a right to know. there was no national security issues. we disagreed on that, sir. i locked horns with people across the aisle. even after all of that, i was grateful for the comedy. the gentleman i knocked horns with said i was taught to hate the sin and love the sinner. i really love being on this this committee. i love it. from living in newark, new jersey, this was where i wanted to be, sir. i wanted to be on a committee that dealt with justice in this country. when we swear an oath to liberty and justice for all, i don't

think we are there yet as a country. i have to say now as i'm sitting here that i deeply recent that this dealt with partisanship. this shifted this debate in this committee and in this country from raw partisanship to something much deeper. i have such respect for the ranking member. i was in the room when we discussed literally hours after i was aware that the letter existed about what her motivations were. it was a private room and forgive me for speaking out of if the ranking member believes i am, but her entire sense of decency and honor had nothing to do with politics.

politics was not mentioned. her entire concerns were about the dignity and the humanity and the respect for dr. ford. the conversation we had was about the best way to handle the information that was just presented to all of us. i have now been in numerous caucus meetings where politics has not been discussed. what has been done was some of the most eloquent speeches i have heard from my colleagues about issues of sexual assault and rain. i heard colleagues read letters that had been written not by a democrat or republican, but by americans concerned by the issue. this is not a partisan moment for our country. back in the early 1990s, i was a student during the anita hill, clarence thomas hearings. i think there people on both sides that agree that was dealt with wrong.

the process then did not merit the dignity and decency of the folks involved or of the issue of sexual harassment. but yet that involved multiple hearings. that involved multiple witnesses. that involved an fbi investigation. yet we still criticized that process. now we are here today and we have fallen even far short of what i believed was an inadequate process. sir, this is not about partisanship. a lot of folks are trying to make this about whether she was flying to california or not. whether the letter was authorized released or not. whether the process served her or not. that seems to be stripping away the heroism of dr. ford to come before this committee willingly, even under circumstances that

she said herself were not her wishes. she asked for an fbi investigation. she asked for more witnesses. she wasn't given what she asked for and still came here and sat before this committee. what did she say, sir? when someone has the courage to speak to one of the most powerful bodies in the land, what did she say? she shared a raw and visceral, incredible, a profoundly powerful testimony with this committee and the world and she was believable. i believe her. she told us of her indelible memory, using words like seared into her memory. speaking to brain chemistry in a way -- she spoke of uproarious laughter of brett kavanaugh and mark judge being pinned to a

bed, being hand over the mouth, fearing for her life and was terrified of being raped or accidentally killed. when asked by this committee what level of certainty, this was not i don't know or i'm not 100% sure. she said i'm 100% sure it was judge kavanaugh. it was seared into her memory. she knows 100%. that is credible because she knew him. she had interacted with him socially before he attacked her. she didn't need to pick him out of a lineup of teenagers in a random attack. she knew him. dr. ford's credible testimony does not stand on its own. it is bolstered by significant corroboration. in 2012, 2013, 2014, 2016, she

spoke of it and told it to five people. long before judge kavanaugh was nominated for the supreme court. she told multiple people she was sexually assault saed as a teen abler and in many cases by name and to others as a federal judge. each of these individuals provided this committee with their sworn statements attesting to the fact. we could have called those individuals that this was not what i heard, part of a coordinated attack and something to do with the clintons and the other allegations. it this was something in early years had talked about brett kavanaugh assaulting her. this is not a political attack. this is consistent not only with her statements and consistent with what we know about other people who have undergone sexual attacks and beyond the corroboration, dr. ford's

account is also corroborated by independent facts. facts, not opinions. the fact that dr. ford identified mark judge and pj smith as others who were friends of kavanaugh and present at the gathering is corroborated. it's also corroborated in judge kavanaugh's own calendar. he documented a gathering that included mark judge and pj smith and a reference to alcohol. dr. ford testified that shortly after the assault around six to eight weeks later, she ran into mark judge at a local grocery store and he seemed very uncomfortable to see her. in his book, tales of a gen-x drunk, he described working in a local grocery store in the summer of 1982. it's all consistent. the circumstances surrounding her coming forward to this committee also support her.

first, she made contact with elected representatives before judge kavanaugh was even nominated. this isn't some political hit job. before he was even nominated, she came forward with this testimony. second she submitted to a lengthy, intrusive, emotional, as she said, polygraph record. we didn't call for the polygraph tester to sit before us. the report concluded she was truthful and now a part of the committee's record. third, number three, she reportedly called for an fbi investigation into her claims, fully understanding that a false statement to the fbi could subject her to criminal penalties. we all know what it means when you get a call from a committee staffer or partisan, in this case, versus when you get a call from the fbi. where lying to them is a felony.

that is a powerful difference between a committee investigation and an fbi agent interviewing people. chasing after facts. pulling on the loose threads that have been evident in judge kavanaugh's record. and fourth, she came forward publicly despite knowing she would face harsh public scrutiny, threats, relentless invasions of privacy that her life would be forever altered. we heard a lot about the effect on judge kavanaugh, which is real and not exaggerated. but the effect on her as well and what she had to submit to by coming forward and making that courageous testimony. judge kavanaugh's testimony regardless of the allegations stands in sharp contrast to dr. ford's testimony. first judge kavanaugh has everything to lose should the allegations be fully investigated and proven true. everything to lose.

that's why i don't think he wants a full investigation. second, he has given numerous opportunities time and time again to call for an fbi investigation. call for an independent investigation to clear his name. but he refused to do so. if i was in the balance and was being accused of things i knew were lies, i would be demanding every bit of evidentiary investigation possible. not just the fbi, but independent investigators and every loose threat. he hasn't. he refused to call for this committee to hear even live testimony from witnesses that could corroborate his story or the doctor's. third, his testimony and claims regarding his drinking habits in high school and college and beyond have been contradicted by so many people. his statements have proven to be not true. judge kavanaugh's freshman

college roommate said he was frequently incoherently drunk. he became aggressive and belligerent when he was drunk. judge kavanaugh's friend from yale college to whom he referred to numerous times said it's not credible for judge kavanaugh to say he has no memory lapses in the nights he drank to excess. i will tell you this. lynn brooks who said she didn't want to come forward, she is a republican, mr. chairman. she did not want to come forward, but last night after listening to his testimony was so offended by his lies that this is what his friend from yale, a registered republican said. there is no doubt in my mind that while at yale he was a big partier. often drank to excess. there had to be a number of nights he does not remember. in fact, i was witness to the

night he got tapped into his fraternity and was stumbling drunk and was in a ridiculous saying really dumb things. i can almost guarantee that there is no way he remembers that night. this is a registered republican who didn't want to come forward until he heard the lies of judge kavanaugh. he said in an interview there were multiple e-mails and texts circling moosz classmates about how kavanaugh was lying to the senate judiciary committee in his testimony. that's from a republican who didn't want to come forward until witnessed the lies. what three other people dr. ford indicated were present last night. he told us as his exonerating evidence kept mentioning three names over and over again. four people who knew dr. ford

who dr. ford said were present at the gathering where she was sexually assaulted said it didn't happen. that's patently untrue. mark judge said i have no memory of the alleged incident. this is not it did not happen. pj smith said he has no judge. that's not it did not happen. leland kaiser said through her attorney she has no recollection of being at a party or gathering where kavanaugh was present. that was not it did not happen. in fact leland kaiser said she believes dr. ford. the only person who denied the event has taken place and said it did not happen is judge kavanaugh. so now this is the real point, sir. >> can you -- >> i would like to finish, sir. i understand that, but may i finish my segment. >> okay. i want to ask you a question. you have gone 17 minutes. i have three other people who

would like to speak. >> sir, i understand that. i will be closing my commends soon and would like to continue. >> are you willing to let three other people speak. >> i can finish my comments and you can let whoever wants to speak speak. you are the chairman. >> go ahead. >> he can take my time. >> this nation is watching. not in a partisan way. we saw one republican so offended because she knows kavanaugh. this is americans watching right now to see what this body will do. this is not about politics or partisanship. i will forever remember what dr. ford said when she came before us. she said she was performing her civic duty. not trying to destroy a man. she was a courageous, heroic woman telling her truth of sexual assault and harassment. this was what was done to me, she said. many of my colleagues said they found dr. ford credible.

but to confirm judge kavanaugh, you would have to say not only that you don't believe her, dr. ford, but that you are so certain this didn't happen that you are willing to force a vote now without any further investigation. at best, this means somehow she was confused and doesn't know what happened to her. even though yesterday she told us that she remembers brett kavanaugh covering her mouth, seared into her memory, expressing fear at the time that he might accidentally kill her. she told us details from 2012, 13, 16, and 17 told to a therapy and her husband. this is where we are. this is not a partisan moment. this is a moral moment in our nation. we do not have to have this vote today. we can correct from the mistakes of the past in this nation. there are millions of people, men and women, survivors of

sexual assault and body of powerful people and what will happen. this toxic culture and pernicious patriarchy in this country have to stop. it's real in this country and people are suffering and they are watching this body right now. children abused and watching what powerful people in religious institutions and how they sweep it aside and deny, attack. people in corporations or news media outlets abused and harassed for years. and their testimony, their truth was swept aside, belittled. attacked and vilified and followed by investigators. millions are watching this body and how we act. do we rush to a vote? will we brush aside a credible witness's testimony? will we belittle an attack of credible testimony? will we ignore credible

testimony? will we listen? will we believe? in the united states of america right now there are dark corners of our culture. the center for disease control reports one out of every three american women. one out of three american women will experience some form of sexual violence. one oust st of six men. 60% go unreported. there are those watching this group of powerful people. how will we deal with a privileged man. a seat on the supreme court is not an entitlement. just because he went to yale or are the captain of your basketball team, this is not an entitlement. mr. chairman, this is not a court of law. we are not saying that this man is it guilty of what he said. the question is, do we know enough now to delay this or are

we going to rush to put someone on the supreme court with this cloud hanging over them? i cannot stomach that we are going move forward. that we are going to say to women across this country that say to men across this country. >> i think that question you just asked is a good place to stop. >> sir, i will stop with this. with respect for this committee and respect for you. i cannot sit here. i cannot participate in what i know history is going to look back as a dark moment again in the same way we look back. i cannot participate in that. i conclude my remarks, sir. we should not brush aside her comments and belittle her testimony. we should listen to her and listen to women and we should thoroughly investigate this before moving forward. any other thing is to diminish the truth, diminish the issue of

sexual harassment in this country, and to again, relegate ourselves to what i believe is a dark, dark element of our society. with that, sir, i will leave. >> senator kennedy. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in my judgment, there were no winners in this room yesterday. none. all i saw were two people, two human beings in pain. all of us in my opinion, including dr. kavanaugh or dr. ford, rather, and judge

kavanaugh have a blinkered perspective. whatever happened, happened 40 years ago. that's just a fact. i don't know what happened to dr. ford. i don't know if we will ever know what happened to dr. ford. i do believe something very, very, very bad happened to dr. ford and i am very sorry. but i do not believe that judge brett kavanaugh was involved. that's why i will support his nomination. let me talk about something that i'm a little more certain of. and i will be brief,

mr. chairman. this has been as someone put it in an article this morning, a grotesque carnival. in my opinion, this has been an intergalactic freak show. as far as i'm concerned congress hit rock bottom and started to dig. and all of this could have been avoided. every bit of it. the other thing i'm concern of is that the cynical gains, this character assassination has

damaged dr. ford and judge kavanaugh and their families irrepairab irrepairably. it could have been avoided. now, senator feinstein talked about this earlier and she's right. how we treat women in america does matter. this is no country for creepy old men. our young men. our middle aged men. but this is no country at all, in my opinion, at least not the kind of country without due process. both the accuser and the accused

is entitled to respect and fairness and, yes, to due process. to the person who leaked dr. ford's letter, to the person who breached dr. ford's anonymity, and to the person who did not tell hershey could have avoided this by testifying privately in her home in california, you know who you are. you should bow your head in shame, in my opinion, and you

should hide your head in a bag every day for the rest of your natural life. and you also ought to read something. i don't know if you believe in god or if you read the bible. but there is wisdom in a passage whether you read the bible or believe in god or not. and i would refer you to matthew 16:26. for what is a person profited? for what is a person profited if he gains the whole world and he loses his soul. thank you, mr. chairman.

>> these fall the gavel. >> mr. chairman? >> you yielded your time, you told me. >> i yielded part of my time to senator booker. do i have any left? >> you may proceed. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i yield my time to him, mr. chairman. >> i appreciate that graciousness. i hope it is a sign that we will rebuild across the aisle. yesterday there were words spoken and we know in families that words are spoken in anger, and sometimes in the moment that we later walk back. those words yesterday from

members across the aisle to this side were extraordinary for a confirmation hearing and know they would say that some of our words to them may be on the same level. we have worked together and we have traveled together. we have a responsibility together to do the business of the united states senate and mr. chairman, i know you may not agree with me, but i think in the spirit of working together, a delay in this vote would be appropriate. i'm here to make a last appeal that we avoid a rush to judgment with great respect for your positi position. the session yesterday was a job

interview. and it's a job interview for a position unlike any other. i have tremendous reverence for the supreme court and i have a law degree and argued cases there and spent most of my career in the courts. and my belief is that this decision on how to vote and i will vote no, is among the most important i will make as a united states senator. the united states of america deserves not just a good nominee, but the best person for the job. the person that we saw come before us yesterday was filled with such ranker and such anger that i cannot accept that he would be an impartial and objective justice on the united

states supreme court. to describe members of this committee as a left wing experience to threaten, literally to threaten united states senators, i simply cannot accept. we are interview iing judge kavanaugh for a position that is a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. he cannot be removed except through impeachment. he will be there for decades to come. i made no secret of my opposition to him based on his out of the mainstream views and judicial philosophy. his apparent goal to chip away if not overturn roe v. wade and the guarantees that allow women when to decide whether they

become and have children. the decision by millions of americans to marry the person they love, consumer's rights, worker's rights, the powers of the president, chi think would become an imperial presidency if he becomes a justice on the supreme court. yesterday, my opposition solidified because of temperament and fitness, which i believe he lacks. by virtue of tsitting here and e gave us his views still are disqualifying for me, but his character and fitness ought to be a reason for everyone to vote no. we saw a witness yesterday of an entirely different character and

temperament. a woman who told us her story in steady, even, helpful terms. a story that was deeply painful for her. she has endured threats and public assassination, character assassination and public shaming that no one should have to suffer. my heart goes out to her as well as to judge kavanaugh's family. these kinds of vile comments or threats have noplace in our public discourse. she has every reason to remain silent and no incentive personally to come forward except to do a public service for the nation, as she stated. and her story was powerful, compelling, personal. i believe her.

i have to disbelieve an angry and defined man whose story simply does not hold up. he claimed that the fbi investigated because they did a background check six times. the fbi never investigated dl blasey ford's investigations. they never investigated debra ramirez or julie swetnick's allegations. those are gaps in the work that remain to be done. in fact the aba issued a statement supported an investigation into judge kavanaugh. the aba rating is the gold standard. the committee investigators may be conscientious and dedicated, but they are no substitute for

the trained professionals with the expertise and experience of fbi agents. a person who is independent would want the fbi to investigate their claims and clear their name. judge kavanaugh refused to make that request. dr. blasey ford did so. the question is, what is he hiding and what is the administration concealing? why have we not received those millions of pages of documents that remain hidden? why has judge kavanaugh not taken a polygraph. he said they are not reliable and that the polygraph dr. ford subjected herself to was meaningless. she passed it. as a judge on the d.c. circuit, judge kavan