quorum call:

mr. merkley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: mr. president, i have a lot of concerns -- the presiding officer: the senate in a quorum call. mr. merkley: i ask the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: i have lot of concerns about the possibility of brett kavanaugh serving on the supreme court. they're concerns that come from many different directions. but let's start with the precedent that this body has not reviewed his full record. we haven't taken any look at all at the three years he spent as staff secretary to president bush because the president's team intervened and asked us not to t and a couple members of this body collaborated with the white house to deny everybody else here the possibility of

looking at his record. the thing is that each and every one of us has the responsibility to review the record. this is an exceptional situation in which a few members have made it impossible for anyone in the body to fulfill their constitutional responsibility, it is an extraordinary abuse of power in this body. and then we have the president of the united states reaching out in other ways, in ways we've never seen before, and putting the stamp of presidential privilege on some 100,000 documents. now, these were documents from the time that brett kavanaugh served as the white house counsel. we received a few documentsment up there a lot of troubling things in these documents. about 100,000 were censored by the president of the united states. can i just remind my colleagues,

the president is not supposed to interfere with the work of the senate in the confirmation process. it is called the separation of powers. maybe some of you would like to pull out your constitution and study it for a moment and realize the president nominates but doesn't get to decide what this body reviews. and yet with that stamp of presidential power untested has done so, for as far as we can tell, for the first time in u.s. history. then we have the fact that he asked the same individual who he'd given the stamp of presidential power for to proceed to make some 140,000 documents committee confidential so that the public couldn't see them. well, that, too, was untested. that, too, was an original strategy. that, too, was a situation of minimizing the conversation that experts could have over what was in those records.

of those three phases, i think the one that bothers me most is the second one, the use of the stamp presidential privilege on 100,000 documents. when presidential privilege -- otherwise known as executive privilege -- was used in the past, a document was looked at and it was determined what constitutional test does this meet for special treatment? now, you would think that since these were documents from the bush administration, the trump administration couldn't make any of the arguments that are normallially made -- normally made. but no explanation was given. this was just straight-out censorship across the board. now, i challenged that censorship and the hearing that was supposed to take place, unfortunately, won't take place

because of this rush to complete the confirmation before the senate can get hold of those document oz, before that hearing can occur. why the rush to cooperate with the white house to prevent this body from the seeing those 100,000 pages that were censored by the white house? what is the president hiding? is it brett kavanaugh's involvement in the policy of torture? is it brett kavanaugh's involvement in holding the documents stolen from senate democrats, because we know he received them? is it his involvement in other nominations where he said he wasn't very involved? what's in those 100,000 documents that the white house was desperate that this body not

review? so that's certainly troubling. no nomination should go forward without a review by this body of the nominee's records, certainly not for a lifetime appointment. certainly not for the supreme court. and then there's concern over the temperament of the individual. certainly out of the millions of americans, the hundreds of millions of americans across this land -- certainly there's at least nine who have the temperament to serve. no need to turn to someone who is belligerent and condescending. no one to turn to someone who is angry and unstable. but what did we sue see? that's exactly what we saw when he testified before the senate

committee. he said things like, some of you were lying in wait and had it ready, although he said it in an angrier tone than that. he said, this confirmation has become a national disgrace. well, i don't actually argue with that, because it is a disgrace because of the compromises of fairness that have occurred in this process towards the women who came forward. when he was asked by senator klobuchar if he's ever had a blackout, he's ever been blackout drunk, he responded, i don't know. have you? well, interesting response. did he respond i don't know because he can't remember because he blacked out? was that his point? and then we saw the partisan rhetoric, a frenzy on the left to come up with something,

anything to block my confirmation. angry and partisan, all at one moment. he went on to say much more about things being calculated and orchestrated, about things being a political hit fueled with pent-up anger about president trump. he talked about fear unfairly stoked. he talked about revenge on behalf of the clintons. well, any threat in the senate -- he said, as we all know, what comes around -- goes around, comes around. this man with these quotes qualified to serve on that special body known as the

supreme court of the united states? i don't think so. he talked about the fact that he didn't drink too much and didn't become belligerent. yet we saw a lot of belligerence when he came before the body. this is called not having judicial temperament. that performance of intemperate behavior led to 2,400 law professors noting that it was improper, inappropriate, simply wrong that this man should serve. they wrote a letter october 3. the senate should not confirm kavanaugh. the letter presented to us the following day. and they said this. they said, judicial temperament is one of the most important

qualities of a judge. as a congressional research service explains, a judge requires, quote, a personality that is evenhanded, unbiased, impartial, courteous yet firm, and dedicated to a process, not a result. a concern for judicial temperament dates back to our founding. in federalist 78 titled "judges as guardians of the constitution," alexander hamilton expressed the need for the integrity and moderation of the judiciary. the letter continues, we are law professors who teach, research, and write about the judicial institutions of this country.

many of us appear in state and federal court, and our work means that we will continue to do so, including before the united states supreme court. we regret that we feel compelled to write to you, our senators, to provide our views that at the senate hearings on september 27, judge brett kavanaugh displayed a lack of judicial temperament that would be disqualifying for any court and certainly for elevation to the highest court of this land. they continue, based on their background, 2,400 law professors from across the country, saying, the question at issue was, of course, painful for anyone. but judge kavanaugh exhibited a

lack of commitment to judicious inquiry. instead of being open to the necessary search for accuracy, judge kavanaugh was repeatedly aggressive with questioners. even in his prepared remarks, judge kavanaugh described the hearing as partisan, referring to it as a calculated and orchestrated political hit rather than acknowledging the need for the senate, faced with new information, to try to understand what had transpired. instead of trying to sort out with reason and care the allegations that were raised, judge kavanaugh responded in an intemperate, inflammatory, and partial manner, and he interrupted and at times was discourteous to senators. as you know, under two statutes

governing bias and recusal, judges must step aside if they are at risk of being perceived as of being unfair. as congress has previously put it, a judge or justice shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. these statutes are part of a myriad of legal commitments to the impartiality of the judiciary, which is the cornerstone of the courts. we have differing views about the other qualifications of judge kavanaugh, but we are united. as professors of law and scholars of judicial institutions, in believing that he did not display the impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on the highest court of the land. signed with their respective institutional affiliations.

2,400 law professors saying that this man is not suited to serve. another concern not mentioned in that letter was his if i dealt to the -- his fidelity to the truth. mispresentations, misrepresentations, inaccuracies and straightout whoppers. some of our colleagues, my colleague, the senior senator from south carolina, said i have argued to you that when you found that a judge was a perjurer, you couldn't in good

conscience send him back into the courtroom because everybody that came into that courtroom thereafter would have a real serious doubt. a real serious doubt. over whether or not the truth was being told. brett kavanaugh said all witnesses to his alleged assault of dr. ford refuted her claim. or said it didn't happen. what is the truth? only one person said it didn't happen, brett kavanaugh. all those other folks he said refuted it. nobody refuted it. they said they couldn't remember , but they didn't refute it. and one said while she couldn't remember, she believed dr. ford.

so brett kavanaugh, in the most generous capacity, simply doesn't have the ability to keep the facts straight on a pretty straightforward thing. big difference between refuting and not remembering. or he deliberately misrepresented the facts, in which case he lied. brett kavanaugh said he first heard of deborah ramirez's allegations in the period since "the new yorker" published its story, but we have had multiple reports that brett kavanaugh and his team were working to discredit ramirez before" the new yorker" story. well, why did he say that he learned about it after when he was working to discredit it before? did he think this was clever,

that he could enkind of say well, i heard about the full story in "the new yorker" after" the new yorker" article was published? was that what he was trying to imply like maybe i could slip by on that one? he didn't want people to know that he knew about it early and had worked to discredit her. another whopper from brett kavanaugh. brett kavanaugh said he did not travel in the same social circles as dr. ford who went to holton arms, but what was the truth. his classmates said they routine ly socialized with the holton arms girls. so so much for that statement. brett kavanaugh said he cat gorably did not receive documents stolen from democratic senators and their staffs by

manny miranda in the early 2000's, but in one of those documents that didn't get censored, that slipped its way through to the senate, what did we find out? it shows he clearly received the stolen documents. another lie from brett kavanaugh. brett kavanaugh said that judge pickering's nomination was not one he primarily handled. well, let's just say this is less than the full truth. maybe if you emphasize the words primarily, you find some shred of accuracy, but certainly not a full and appropriate presentation because it turns out that he was involved in a

number of critical aspects of the pickering nomination. brett kavanaugh said he did not see or hear anything about president bush's warrantless wire-tapping program before it was publicly reported. but in some of those other documents that slipped through, we find out that he did know about them and he e-mailed john yu about the warrantless wiretapping long before the program became public. brett kavanaugh said the bush administration did not consider ideology when selecting or vetting judges, but the truth is the documents show that they did consider ideology. why did this man, brett kavanaugh, feel the need to

misrepresent the truth time after time after time? he implied that when it came to drinking, that he didn't drink excessively, that he did not get aggressive, and yet we have person after person after person saying that's exactly what happened. he said the phrase renate alumnus in his yearbook was clumsily intended to show affection. let me repeat that. quote, clumsily intended to show affection. and he continued, and that she was one of us. isn't it nice he and his colleagues got together to pick out this one young lady to show in their yearbooks that they had

affection for her. when everyone else involved said that's not what it was all about at all. it was about this group of men bragging about sexual conquest. it may not have actually occurred, but they were laughing over the prospect of disgracing this individual. what kind of a warped character goes out of his way to either brag about sexual conquests or to imply, imply a character that she did not have, tear her down, but that's brett kavanaugh. and he went on to tell some real whoppers. the folks in his circle say the

term ralphing refers to throwing up from drinking, and he said oh, no, it refers to a sensitive stomach. they are all things that he had written. and boofing, what was that all about? he said oh, that had to do with flatulence. but everyone around him says no, that was a crude sexual activity that he was describing. that's what that word means. i won't give the details of it. he said devil's triangle is a drinking game when everyone says no, it wasn't a drinking game. it had another sexual connotation. so he couldn't bring himself to be honest and say i don't feel comfortable giving the definition of those in a public hearing because i'm such a nice,

sweet guy. lying came so easy. lie after lie after lie. as my colleague from south carolina said, when a person lies once, you don't trust them after that. how would anyone after breaking the truth be believed in the future? so we have the fact that his character is one of hurting and attacking others, of lying even to the u.s. senate. 2,400 law professors know his temperament, his animosity, his partisanship make him unqualified to serve on the court.

so what's this all about? what did my colleagues across the aisle -- why are my colleagues across the aisle so intense on getting him confirmed? well, it has to do with his judicial philosophy and taking no risk that this seat is not filled with this judicial philosophy, this philosophy for the powerful over the people. there have been some interesting aspects of this philosophy. one is that he believes that the president is above and beyond the law. he should not or cannot be indicted or investigated while he was in office. now, the court may well have to make some rulings on how president trump conducts himself. president trump might just fire special prosecutor.

is that within his power? the court may have to decide. the president may decide to pardon o.p.m. himself, something never done in u.s. history, given all the investigations into egregious conduct. why did the president pick this individual who has the most expansive view of presidential power to serve op the court -- on the court? maybe trying to write himself a get out of jail free card. but if you can't find in the constitution that the president is above and beyond the law, and i dare you to try, dare anyone in this chamber to find that in the constitution because it's not there. why are we putting a man on the court who thinks it is, who is so comfortable twisting and torturing the words on the page

to reach a predesired conclusion? yes, he was handpicked by the federalist society after trump promised to appoint anti-roe v. wade judges who would strip away the constitutional right to a full range of reproductive services. it bothers me a lot the idea of a judge who believes the government should be in the exam room between a woman and her doctor. the government does not belong in the exam room between a woman and her doctor on difficult medical life issues. but in every decision or virtually every decision,

kavanaugh finds a way to twist the circumstances in order to find for the powerful over the people. that's what this rush to jam this person onto the court is. does he believe the court should take on gerrymandering? which is a huge blight on equal representation of the people? no sign that he does. we currently have a court that the majority has not wanted to take on those issues, despite the fact they are the ones that are supposed to maintain the integrity of the constitution. do we have any sign that he is upset or concerned about the tearing down of the voting rights act that this chamber passed and the house passed and it was law for decades but was torn down by the court rather

than letting this chamber or the house together decide to adjust that law? they decided to tear it down, saying that, you know what, we don't have to worry about this anymore. any sign that judge kavanaugh cares about the desecration of the opportunity of citizens to vote in this country, no, an offense against the constitution, yes. his concern, none. what about the dark money that is the consequence of a huge concentration of wealth and influence, a huge concentration of influence because the supreme court opened the door with the case united.

-- with the case citizens united. i found it kind of bizarrely humorous to find colleagues across the aisle complaining about dark money because they have been absolutely arguing that dark money should be -- should be permitted. when we had the idea of not having dark money and shining a light on it, it was called the disclose act, every single republican in this chamber voted against it. every single one voted governance sunlight. why is that? well, the koch brothers essentially are the puppet masters of this chamber. they invested hundreds of millions of dollars in dark money, thanks to citizens united, in making sure they had control of this chamber. did we hear judge kavanaugh have any interest in cleaning up this

mess? thomas jefferson was speaking to the core architecture of our constitution, and he said that the mother principle referred to as the mother principle, was that there would be an equal voice among the citizens. now, we know that it was not the case that everyone had an equal voice. communities of color did not have an equal voice. women did not have an equal voice. but what jefferson was speaking to was the distribution of power across the electorate. he said, only then will you have laws that reflect the will of the people. but citizens united is the opposite of that. it concentrates power. if you have an individual like the koch brothers who can put $

100 million into a campaign and you have an ordinary person who can put $100 into a campaign, then you are granting the koch brothers one million times the influence. that's the exact opposite of jefferson's equal voice principle. does kavanaugh have the slightest understanding that the construction of the constitution was to avoid the powerful running the government by and for the powerful. the constitution was a response to that very problem in europe. no sign of that. no interest in that. quite the opposite. he's bragged about being the most pure on the first amendment. and what does that mean? it means that he loves the weaponization of the first

amendment, twisted as an instrument to give the powerful victories over the people time and time again. decisions against the environment, decisions against workers, decisions against consumers, decisions against reproductive rights -- that's the rush to put this man unqualified in every possible way to serve on the supreme court, not having the temperament, not having the integrity -- that's the rush. secured and ensure that jefferson's concept of equal voice is destroyed. the most troubling or another hugely troubling -- i guess really the most troubling -- is

his conduct towards women. the fact that he collaborated with other boys to damage the integrity of a young woman. that was troubling. it's troubling -- beyond troubling story of his assault on dr. ford. but you might say, wait ... we don't have any corroborating information about that. you know, dr. ford asked for her corroborating witnesses to come before the senate judiciary committee, and how many of those were allowed to come before the committee? well, none. none. zero. the committee was determined to make it just he said and she said, without any other

information. that is treating an individual unfairly, absolutely unfairly, to cherry-pick information, only to allow it to support one side of an argument, deny her the ability the bring her corroborating people before the judiciary committee. even in 1991 that was not done with anita hill. this body treated dr. ford worse. and then the sham of the reopened f.b.i. investigation, which was only reopened because one courageous colleague from arizona said i'm not going forward unless we really examine these situations that involve his assault on women. but the decision on thousand conduct that f.b.i. investigation -- but the decision on how to conduct that

f.b.i. investigation wasn't up to this chamber. it's up to the president. and the president does a scoping document, tells the f.b.i. who to talk to, and apparently he consulted with the leadership, it is reported, the republican leadership of this chamber, on who to let the f.b.i. consult with, and the result was not to the consult or talk to, to interview, a single one of those eight people that dr. ford asked to be interviewed. we'll take some time, i guess, to know exactly who said what to whom. it was the president's decision, so the responsibility rests there. but in the interest of fairness, was there not one member of this body in that conversation who could speak up and say, we want the facts? not a whitewash, we want the facts. and apparently no one did. no one insisted on that. they said, no, we'll go forward

even if we hide all of the facts. so then there was debbie ramirez , who shared her story of being assaulted, her story from the college dorm. and in that case, she said there are 20 people that the f.b.i. should talk to. well, she wasn't invited to appear before the judiciary committee at all. and none of her 20 individuals that she suggested should be talked to were invited. so she got no hearing, complete exclusion. and yet many members of this

chamber attacked her. you think that's fair attacking the person but not letting her come before this chamber to give her story? do you think that's fair? it's not fair. and then to have the f.b.i. receive instructions from the white house after consultation with the republican leadership, and the result is they didn't talk to one of her corroborating witnesses, not one. why in this day and age, where we've been in the middle of a me too conversation, can the individuals in this chamber on the right side of the aisle take such joy in being so unfair to a woman coming forward to share her story? because it's even worse because each one knew, if they read the newspapers, that there was a lot of corroborating information.

kenneth apple was in the same suite in the dorm, lived in the same suite. two bedrooms sharing a common space. and he heard the story. he independently recalled many of the same details that ramirez shared, including that a male student had encouraged kavanaugh, as he exposed himself. the classmate recalled the party took place in a common room on the first floor. i've known this all along, he said. quote, it's been on my mind all these years when his name came up. it was a big deal. how come his voice was not allowed to come before the

senate? why did the f.b.i. not talk to him and put it into the report? well, i'll tell you why. it was so that senators could go down and review the report and go, oh, there's no new information. well of course there's no new information, because the president's team reportedly asked the republicans' leadership what they wanted done, and apparently they didn't want any of the people who had corroborating information to be talked to or reported on. that is a betrayal of justice. that is a complete corruption of justice. mr. apple is a professor now. he's a professor at princeton theological seminary. he's deeply respected. he said, it's been on my mind

all these years when his name -- referring to kavanaugh -- when his name came up. it was a big deal. the story stayed with him, he said, because it was disturbing and seemed outside the bounds of acceptable behavior, even during heavy drinking at parties on campus. he said he'd been shocked but not necessarily surprised because the social group to which kavanaugh belonged often draining to excess. he recalled that brett kavanaugh was relatively shy until he draining, at which point you could become aggressive and even belligerent. now, this individual, kenneth, maybe you're quick to judge and say, well, he just invented this memory, except here's the problem -- he shared it with his roommate from his first year in graduate school. he told about what had happened that year.

so he has a lot of credibility. he's a professor at a theological seminary. he lived in the same suite. he heard the story about it shortly after it happened. it disturbed him so much he shared it with his classmate, or his roommate from his first year in graduate school. that's pretty -- pretty persuasive substantiation of debbie ramirez's story. or there was another classmate richard oh, an emergency room doctor in california. he recalled overhearing soon after the party a female student tearfully are recounting to another student an incident at the party involving a gag with -- well, you know the story -- followed by a male student exposing himself.

was richard oh invited to come before the senate and tell his story? no, he wasn't. another transgression of justice. did the f.b.i. talk to him? no, because they had instructions not to talk to these individuals who had corroborating information. this situation in which when a woman comes forward to share a story she is sea treated -- she's treated with disdain by this institution -- that's why these women didn't want to come forward. every one -- everyone support something and voting for kavanaugh shares the shame of the mistreatment of dr. ford and

the mistreatment of debbie ramirez. and across this land it's caused women to relive the experiences that they have gone through. many of them writing to our offices. and i encourage every senator to read every one of the letters they're getting before voting this afternoon -- late this afternoon on the question of whether kavanaugh should serve on the court. i read five letters earlier, but i've received a lot of letters. i'm going to read more of them now. so this individual writes, please do what you can do -- please do what you can to block the kavanaugh vote.

-- to the supreme court. i am also a victim of sexual assault when i was in graduate in the early 1970's. i never pursued that due to fear of consequences and feeling that this was my fault. this has to stop. she concludes the letter. do you think that she got my encouragement from the completely unjust way that this body treated these two women? no. it's exactly the classic setup and rigged response that so often women have met when they had the courage to come forward with their stories. another woman wrote i cried all the way to work listening to dro christine blasey ford. if you can do anything as my

senator, do everything you can to change the course of our national court decision. there isn't much more i can say as a mom, a professional, as a sexual assault victim who has never come forward. please. well, i appreciate her writing to me, and i share her concern, and the belief that we should change the course that we seem to be on at the moment, because there is nothing like confirming this man without fairly examining the women courageous to come forward that is more insulting to all of these women who went through the experience of being assaulted.

another oregonian writes to me i am a survivor of sexual abuse. i was assaulted as a child by someone my family trusted, then again by a stranger when i was in college. in both instances, i remember the sinking feeling i had afterward, the feeling that even if i spoke up, i wouldn't be believed. i have long felt trapped inside my own trauma, but over the past couple of weeks, i have drawn such strength from thester hood of survivors who have shown up, protested, -- the sisterhood of survivors who have shown up, protested, shouted out their own survivor stories.

i have drawn strength from dr. christine blasey ford's testimony. i know that because she steps forward, other survivors will feel brave enough to speak up, too. there is power and comfort when women come together and speak our truth before the world. and i say to dr. christine blasey ford, i'm sorry that you were treated in this horrific manner by the judiciary committee of the u.s. senate. i'm sorry that you were treated so unfairly that not a single one of your corroborating witnesses were pulled before the committee. i feel terrible that the f.b.i. did not talk to any of the people you asked them to talk to it was a rigged system. you were set up. you were betrayed by this body.

by the leadership of this body. but your cure -- courageous action coming forward was not without results. this woman, like thousands of others, are looking to you and saying thank you. thank you for the courage you had to share even though you were afraid that you would be treated unfairly. you came forward anyway, and that gives others the courage to share their stories. unfortunately, your fears, dr. ford, were justified. may it never be again the case. and the only right thing now is for us to not send brett kavanaugh to the court.

there is an article that appeared in an oregon newspaper. i'm going to read the story but like the newspaper not share her name. the newspaper story starts out this way. the event happened 75 years ago when dorothy, with a in quotes, not her real name, watched the testimonies -- when dorothy watched the testimonies of christine blasey ford and brett kavanaugh on television thursday during kavanaugh's supreme court confirmation hearings, the memories came flooding back, and for the first time she felt she must tell her story, a story she never told her mother, a story

she didn't tell her husbands either. dorothy's story is similar to the story blasey told thursday in testimony that's part of the confirmation hearings for supreme court justice nominee kavanaugh. blasey accused kavanaugh of attempting to rape her when they were both at a house party with a group of high school students. kavanaugh denied the occasions which are now the subject of an f.b.i. investigation. dorothy, now 91, was a student at reedsport high school in the 1940's. one day, she was at a friend's house where several kids her age were gathered. she said she was carried into a bedroom by a popular football player, and br she knew what was happening, she found herself pinned to a bed underneath the boy who was struggling to get her pants off. he was both a, quote, big man on

campus, end of quote, and just big. she was 85 pounds. in some ways, dorothy's story is different from blasey's. she was carried, not pushed into the room. there was no one in the room except her and her attacker. dorothy said she was able to push the boy enough that he hit his head on the bed's headboard, and with his weight off her, she was able to yell for help, and her friend and her friend's brother rushed in and rescued her. dorothy doesn't want the news review to use her real name, so she is being referred to by a name that was given to many girls in the year she was born. she still has difficulty dealing with what happened to her in high school. for most of her life, she has refused to think about it. she has had 20 -- plenty else to

think about. she has raised kids, been widowed, remarried, widowed again, but it's still with her. she said, quote, you try to bury all that, and you do for a long time. something like this news comes up and brings it all back. dorothy started off talking about sexual harassment. it was later when she felt able to tell what happened to her -- call what happened to her by a more legally accurate name -- attempted rape. dorothy said she was naive when she was 16. quote, i was pretty shy and naive, and unsure of myself, i guess. i don't know if feeling inferior

is the right word. i made good grades. i worked in the school office, but i was a country kid, she said. she couldn't talk to her mother about sex. if i had tried to ask her anything about sex, she said, that's dirty. we don't talk about that. she had a general idea, enough to understand what her attacker was after. she didn't know if he and other boys were drinking, but she was not. the kids had been dancing before it happened. it never occurred to her to report the incident. that just wasn't done in those days, she said. she was ashamed, embarrassed, as if the whole incident was her fault. the story got around at school, though, and the other kids weren't sympathetic. you look and people are kind of giggling as you walk by.

they heard about it, she said. now she wonders if the same boy went after other girls. quote, it's part of life and it happens a lot more than people realize. it probably happened to other girls in the same school, she said. many years after the event, dorothy said she saw her attacker. he he was in a wheelchair, and e couldn't help thinking great, he got what he deserved. even though 75 years have passed, she has never forgotten what he did. i can still shut my eyes and see that guy packing me over his shoulder and throwing me on the bed and jumping on top of me, she said. watching thursday's hearings made dorothy furious. she believed blasey and she was horrified by the senators who

defended kavanaugh. they are so unfeeling, you know. i would hate to be their wives. if they just sit there and take this guy's word for it, she said, i feel sorry for the wives of these guys who are so macho that they can't see a woman's point of view. the hearing motivated her to come forward. i just felt now is the time to tell my story, and maybe other women will come forward, and maybe they will do something more about the way that women are disbelieved. she said it was a relief to finally share her secret. i'm about to get weepy, she said. do you think that this woman, now in her 90's who went to

reedsport high school takes any good feeling away from the senate, the way the senate treated dr. ford? the fact that they did not allow anyone supporting her story to appear? the fact that the leadership was cop sulted by the white house and the result was a scoping document that did not allow the f.b.i. to talk to the people that had supporting information? do you think that she takes any good feelings away from the way this senate treated debbie ramirez, attacking her, disqualifying her without ever letting her come and tell her story. not talking to the 20 people she suggested had corroborative information. if she takes anything good away

from the horrific way these women were treated, the unfair way they were treated? i don't think so. she must look at the way the senate behaved and say that's supposed to be a distinguished body, an esteemed body. we should expect the best, the best from the u.s. senate, and we got the worst. another woman wrote and said you must stop the confirmation of kavanaugh, especially after his angry, abusive testimony today that was full of lies. i'm a sexual assault survivor, and i'm absolutely full of despair this evening. i'm not the only one getting these letters, so to my colleagues, i'd say are you doing anything to address the

anger about the way that dr. ford was treated? are you insisting that she get fair treatment before you vote to send kavanaugh to the supreme court of the united states? are you insisting that those who can corroborate debbie ramirez's story, including a professor at princeton theological seminary have their chance to tell their story before you send kavanaugh to the supreme court? are you? another individual wrote, please -- please, please vote no to elect brett kavanaugh to the supreme court. as a victim of domestic violence, i am full of fear for everyone who would be affected by the decisions kavanaugh would

have the power to make. this letter starts out, senator, i want to thank you for expressing your concerns regarding the kavanaugh issues. i am a survivor of rape by my best friend's older brother at the age of ten. i also survived many years of abuse by my ex-husband. while watching the coverage of the kavanaugh news, i have heard senators make very hurtful comments about the women who have come forward. i was proud of my senator for having the courage to publicly announce that the way this has been managed by the trump

administration is wrong. i totally relate to what dr. ford describes as being held down and not being able to breathe. the only word that adequately describes this type of treatment is torture. i do not know where my former best friend's brother is. however, my ex-husband walks around with a religious cross around his neck, is a pillar of his church, has the adoration of our daughter. i never told our children. while i am left with years of nightmares and fear. the kavanaugh allegations in the news have triggered memories i've tried to bury for decades. she says, though, that your

comments have renewed my faith that other than my older brother, there exists good men who want to support women who live with the torment of sexual abuse. i would love it if this letter said, i was afraid that the all all-male majority of the judiciary committee would treat dr. ford unfairly. i was afraid but relieved when they heard her out. i was relieved when they insisted that those who could back up her story were allowed to testify. i was relieved and pleased they took her seriously enough, they insisted the f.b.i. -- they told the president, the f.b.i. has to talk to those folks for us to have any credibility. i would love for this letter to say that, but it doesn't say any

of those things. because this body, this leadership let her down and let every woman across america down who has been a victim of sexual violence. another one -- another woman wrote and said, today's hearing was difficult yet important to watch. as a victim of sexual assault myself, i applaud your support. hearing dr. ford's accounts and believe in doing what's right and just. wouldn't it be better if this letter could say, i applaud the senate and the senate leadership and the president of the united states for believing and doing what's right and just? but we didn't get letters like that, did we?

another individual writes, today was an extremely difficult day watching the kavanaugh hearings. i was so amazed by the bravery dr. ford showed throughout her testimony. her experience was raw and credible. as a young victim of sexual assault, i feel emboldened because of dr. ford's testimony. women need to be heard and believed. we have to hold the supreme court to the highest standards. brett kavanaugh is clearly not a candidate for the supreme court. isn't that right, that we should ensure that we have the highest

standards for those who serve on the supreme court? all those district judges across the land writing their decisions , but they get appealed to the circuit courts and all those circuit courts writing their opinions, they get appealed to the supreme court, to nine individuals. isn't it important that we proceed to ensure that, quote, hold the supreme court to the highest standards? we will not do that if we confirm brett kavanaugh to the court. we will be setting an abysmally low standard for integrity, because of all the falsehoods he's told, an incredibly low

standard for behavior. we saw the behavior and the partisanship. we didn't see judicial temperament, impartiality. he violates basically every standard you would set for someone who serve on the supreme court. -- to serve on the supreme court. and yet we're having a vote later today with an indication that he'll be approved. here's another letter. i am a sexual assault survivor. i watched today. the sex crimes prosecutor looked like she had nailed kavanaugh by his own calendar. dr. ford testified that it was early evening and casual. it appears the assault happened at the home that kavanaugh and friends worked out. this is when one of the majority

judiciary members took over and became angry partisans. well, that's all she writes. but i think what bothered a lot of people was that the majority chose to bring in a prosecutor -- a prosecutor, a prosecutor to question dr. ford, as if dr. ford had committed a crime. she didn't commit a crime, my friends. she is a brave woman who came forward to share her story, hoping she'd be taken seriously and treated fairly, afraid she wouldn't, and it turned out, her fears were justified. and hiring a prosecutor to treat her like a criminal?

wow, insult to injury. this story is longer, this letter is longer. the 16th story i'm reading that i've received. -- from constituents back home. watching dr. ford's treatment in the senate today, i am having a hard time getting my own work done. dr. ford's assault experience parallels my own in ways i have not thought about in years. however, unlike judge kavanaugh, my assailant was able to

complete the assaults he set out to do because we were not inebriated at the time he violated me. he merely used his size to overpower me, outweighing me by 150 pounds. like brett kavanaugh, my assailant attended an all-boys catholic school, attended a prestigious university, went on to become an attorney. i have considered because of the types of clients he represents bringing the multiple assaults he perpetrated over the course of two weeks while i stayed with his family across the country from my own to the attention of the state bar where he practices. or journalists in the state where he defended catholic priests accused of abusing children. seeing now what dr. ford is being put through, knowing she

was driven from her home and threatened and is now being assaulted by your colleagues, gives me pause. my assailant isn't up for any promotion. he is not hon a short list for a federal judicial position or running toker any public office. it has been 18 years and the statute of limitations in the state where this took place may or may not have run out, depending on how the acts are defined. if my assailant decides to follow through with his goal to become a politician, my calculus may change. for now i need you to do what you can to shut this nomination down. to show the world that you not

only believe dr. ford but you honor -- honor her testimony. your colleagues, your republican colleagues clearly believe her. they just don't think it matters. please, as a survivor and a constituent, i am begging you -- make her testimony matter. are we going to make her testimony matter? we're not going to make it matter if we send kavanaugh to a seat on the supreme court. her desire, her interest, her possibility of coming forward is cut short by the way she saw

this senate treat dr. ford. that's a very sad commentary on the injustice perpetrated by this body. this is letter number 17. got more than 50 letters here. you can start to hear the themes are very similar, of women being assaulted, women hearing dr. ford's story their own experience and of asking the senate to treat the women who have come forward with fairness and justice and being deeply disturbed that they have not been treated with fairness or

justice. but there is still time. there's still time until we vote and send kavanaugh forward. if we vote no, as these women ask, because an individual with this record does not belong on the court, then we will have honored the courage of these individuals to come forward. as a survivor of assault, starts the next letter, it's important to me that the nominee for one of the highest offices have an impeccable record, which kavanaugh has demonstrated he does not have, both through his reactionary hearing and the accusations against him from

survivors. i implore you to be a voice of reason in the chaos. my first assault happened in 2011. i am so ashamed that the only way my sister found out was because she found an s.t.d. test i'd received from planned parenthood and asked me about it. i was 24. i had nightmares for months. it changed everything. my second assault happened in 2015. i was drunk and in an unfamiliar part of town. an acquaintance offered to give me a ride when i was leaving a bar and my phone died.

she goes on to describe the attack. and she says, i say this not for shock value but to emphasize how painful watching this hearing was. and how unsurprised i'll be if kavanaugh is confirmed. unsurprised because she doesn't expect men to treat women fairly who have been assaulted and come forward, and everything that has happened in this chamber confirms that. the next letter notes as a

survivor of sexual assault, this issue is of the utmost importance. i rarely speak of these events and have tears streaming down my face just writing this. i was unable to report my assault for various reasons, including explicit death threats, fear of exposure by the media, and threats by several powerful men who had the ability to end my career before it had even really begun. this situation hits so close to home that it has been physically painful -- physically painful -- for me to watch much of the coverage.

i have been unable to obtain justice for myself, and that is so crushing. but what would be a greater travesty is to allow a serial predator, a lifetime appointment affecting the lives of every single woman in america are we going to be part of a greater travesty? letter number 19, as a constituent and a victim, i am writing to you to make sure that you vote against brett kavanaugh's confirmation.

during his hearings, kavanaugh misled the judiciary committee under oath. he refused to say whether a sitting president must obey a subpoena and refused to answer whether president trump could pardon himself or bribe someone with a pardon. and now kavanaugh has been accused of sexual assault by multiple women. kavanaugh's answers during his confirmation hearings add to the evidence that trump nominated him not to protect the american people, not to protect the constitution, but to protect himself. it's only a few weeks ago that trump's former lawyer incriminated him in two felonies. it's becoming inevitable that a trump case will reach the supreme court either over his

role in crimes to win the white house or subpoena to answer questions from the special counsel. we already know that kavanaugh believes sitting presidents should not be under criminal prosecution or even investigation. now under oath, kavanaugh isn't even pretending he will be an impartial justice. that is exactly why trump nominated kavanaugh, to be his get-off-of-jail free card. letter 20 begins, as a rape victim myself, i am livid that

this man is even being considered for a high position. brett kavanaugh's views are extreme. his belligerent behavior during the hearing shows he should not sit on the highest court in the country. i urge you to reject this radical choice of a justice who would put our basic rights at risk. use your constitutional authority of advice and consent to ensure that the president cannot place unfit extremists in positions of power that can affect us for decades. serving for life on the highest court, justices have the solemn responsibility to be fair, to be even handed, to uphold the sanctity of our laws and our constitution, and to keep faith with the letter and spirit of

the nation's core, public health, environmental, civil rights and labor laws. his record rejects these principles. please do all in your power to stop brett kavanaugh's nomination. letter after letter reminds us that the supreme court is so important. we should only send individuals to serve on that bench of unimpeachable character.

letter 21, i am deeply concerned about brett kavanaugh's nomination to the supreme court after hearing dr. christine blasey ford's story. there is no need to wait to publicly say that you believe dr. ford. she has generously offered more than enough information for us to fiercely support her. i too am a victim of sexual assault. when i was 21, my boss at the time raped me, leaving me with a lifelong disease, and it never was reported. i had no support. i was embarrassed and humiliated

and wanted to just forget about it. looking back, i wish i would have tried to report him. i was a single mother with a two-year-old child, and my 12-year-old sister present when the assault occurred in the middle of the night as they slept. this happened to me in 1974. i am now a 66-year-old woman who has had relationship problems her whole life and self-esteem and anxiety and sexual dysfunction ever since. a lifetime impact from sexual assault. each of these women want us to

take seriously the experiences that were shared and to take it seriously means we would look into it with fairness and credibility, but we didn't. the senate didn't. letter 22, it would be beyond unethical to continue with kavanaugh's nomination in the wake of dr. blasey's story. i'm counting on you. signed a me too survivor. letter 23, as a victim of

sexual assault during my military service, i too told next to no one why -- told next to no one. why? i wasn't about myself to being treated the way these courageous women who have spoken up are being treated. i'm counting on you. thank you. we hear this time and time again. women say they didn't speak up because they thought they'd be treated unfairly, unfairly, just the way the senate treated the women who came forward to share their stories about brett kavanaugh. isn't that a sorry legacy for this body? isn't that a shameful result,

that women say they didn't speak up because they thought they'd be treated unfairly just like the senate is now unfairly treating dr. ford and debbie ramirez. wouldn't it be a beautiful thing to have done it differently? to have proceeded to say your story matters, so we will talk to those suggested and have corroborating information. we will report what information there is for the consideration of the senate. we do appreciate that you shared your experience, and we will look into it. wouldn't that have been a very different message to send, an example to send for everyone across this country, for

companies when an employee reports an assault, for places of worship when a parishioner reports an assault, for schools, universities when a student reports an assault. wouldn't it have been great to set an example, a high example of how to treat an individual fairly? but we did the opposite. we showed exactly the type of treatment that these women fear. a rigged, unfair, unconcerned response. but there's time to remedy that by not voting to confirm brett kavanaugh. one of the reasons i'm reading

these letters is many of the women who wrote said they were writing to try to make a difference. my team called and talked to a number of them, and they encouraged their letters to be used. they want to be heard. they want to be honored with our attention that we care about the experiences they suffered. we take them seriously. they want us to think about what we've done and take dr. ford seriously and debbie ramirez seriously. but it hasn't happened, but there's still time by not confirming brett kavanaugh. this letter -- in this letter

the individual says how you vote on brett kavanaugh's nomination is one of the most crucial votes you will cast. please vote no. prior to hearing this round of hearings, i was concerned about his ability to be truthful. now as a survivor, i am fearful for the entire female population. i urge you to vote no for all of those reasons. letter number 25-i believe dr. dr. christine blasey ford. i do not believe a man who could have is stifled a frightened woman's screams while he felt