maria: great to see everybody, great show. stay with fox business, we've got the hearing coming up, and here is stuart varney. stuart: thanks very much, maria. good morning, everyone. this is the day when judge brett kavanaugh meets his accuser, dr. christine blasey ford. the questioning begins in one hour. look, it's the going to be a titanic battle. democrats will do just about anything to prevent a conservative getting on the supreme court. republicans will be walking on egg shells, trying to avoid looking hard. with an alleged sexual assault weapons. president trump says if judge kavanaugh is kept off the court on the basis of 36-year-old charges without proof or corroboration, quote, it'll be a horrible, horrible thing. we have late-breaking news on this. two men have come forward who say dr. ford may have mistaken the judge for them; that is,

mistaken identity. it's already a circus, and that degrading spectacle will probably continue today. it didn't have to be this way. senator dye can january feinstein knew -- dye job feinstein knew about the allegations back in july but chose to reveal it on the at the last minute. there could have been a thorough investigation already. my opinion, the democrats have deliberately slimed judge kavanaugh, stained the supreme court and undermined the confirmation process for if all candidates for public office because they can't allow a conservative on the supreme court who might reverse the liberal dominance of our culture. there is other news. number one, an astonishing press conference from president trump. you've never seen a press conference like this before. he broke news on trade. we are talking about the president said, look, we're talking about a bilateral deal with japan, and that was new. and he told our own susan lee, quote: we're not happy with

canada's trade negotiators. wait, there's more. mr. trump is not happy with the federal reserve's interest rate hike. what a performance yesterday. news item three, confirmed in the second quarter of this year the economy did, indeed, achieve over 4%, 4.2, to be precise. item four, it's another despite it all day for the market. stocks will open a little higher. all right. let's keep this moving. we've got a lot to get to. "varney & company" is about to begin. ♪ ♪ stuart: i've just got to get to that astonishing presidential press conference yesterday afternoon. roll some tape. >> mr. president, susan lee from fox business. did the you reject a one-on-one meeting with the canadian prime minister, justin trudeau? >> yeah, i did. >> why? >> because his tariffs are too high, and he doesn't seem to

want the move, and i told him forget about it. you do a really good job are, really. unfortunately, the markets have dropped would you say 30% in the last four months? i said i think she's wrong, i think it's 32, that's okay. but a lot of. [laughter] >> 32. stuart: live and in person on the set with us. congratulations, susan. you broke news there. >> thank you so much. it was quite a spectacle yesterday, about an 80-minute news conference. that led the national newscast in canada last night, front page of the canadian newspapers this morning, and i think he was pretty clear in term the of where nafta's going and how tense negotiations were. but what a press conference. i mean, first six or seven questions were all about kavanaugh, you know? do you want to label the accusers liars, so my thinking was let's get to some real news since we have a trade deadline in four days and a three-quarter of a trillion dollar trading

relationship. that's why i chose to take the route of nafta. we did get some news. he did talk about the con job the democrats are doing against the kavanaugh be nomination. he did say because of the hearings, he might have to delay the rod rosenstein meetings. and china, he continues to say they are interfering in the midterm elections and evidence will be presented soon, he said. stuart: i've never seen a presidential press conference where so many issues were addressed directly and forcefully. >> yes. stuart: did you ever see that in the obama years? elizabeth: no, never saw it. it was like president obama was talking at you where this president is trying to the talk with you. and, you know, he did make mistakes and was called out for certain misstatements, but weaver never seen -- we've never seen anything like it. stuart: i got the impression, susan, that he did watch you on this program. >> yeah, definitely. absolutely watches fox business, corrects me on 2% -- [laughter] on the chinese stock market. there are some interesting moments as well with the iraqi

journalist. i don't think he was meant to actually get the question, but they gave him the microphone anyway, so he was a little surprised, taken aback that he had to ask the u.s. president, president trump, a question. but there were some comedic moments. all if all, 80 minutes. -- all in all, 80 minutes of back and forth with journalists. that's stamm ma. -- stamina. ashley: in the old days with president obama, that would have averaged four questions tops. president trump you can ask anything, he'll give you an answer. stuart: it's riveting stuff. we're going to stay on the press conference for a minute, here is the president on china. roll tape. >> if you look at mr. pilsbury, the reeding authority on china, he was -- the leading authority, he was on a good show recently, and he was saying that china has total respect for donald trump and for donald trump's very, very large brain. he said donald trump, they don't know what to do.

stuart: well -- [laughter] the aforementioned michael pillsbury, shout-out there from the president. he's there, right-hand side of the screen, michael pillsbury of the hudson institute. michael, he called on you, he called you out, i should say, by name, i guess, because he said you'd got it right. what exactly did you get right? >> well, i had to confess errors along with many other china experts early on 10 or 20 years ago. but by confessing and saying we got china wrong, i think it shows that president trump is on the right track. and, frankly, they do praise him. they've got a number of chinese mandarin terms i remember very clearly. they said -- [speaking in native tongue] he's brilliant. one time they said -- [speaking in native tongue] that means crafty, clever. specifically about the trade talks. and one professor, two professors in china told me we don't want to make an early offer because the president will

demand more -- [speaking in native tongue] they've got a third expression which i translate as brainy. the president said big brain, but actually the expression is is -- [speaking in native tongue] so respect is there, craftiness, wary of him. they're almost afraid of him -- stuart: i didn't know you spoke fluent mandarin. [laughter] >> well, let's talk to susan lee in mandarin. >> yes. [laughter] stuart: we have a broad audience here. we want to bring everybody into this thing. michael, i got the impression that the president had watched you on this program. can you confirm that? >> it was a fox news program. it was both your program i said these kind of exact words and also on tucker carlson's program. stuart: okay. but you specifically have said on this program that we, america, are winning this trade fight with china. you have said that and are you sticking to it? >> i'm sticking to it, yes. but i don't mean tomorrow. i think they're very tough.

they think that they sense division in the white house. they sense division in the country. i think they do want to interfere in our elections. the president said he will have more to the say about that, but they're clearly openly pinching farmers in iowa ant soybean prices going down -- stuart: yep, we've got that story coming up. mike billion, thanks very much for coming -- michael, thanks very much for coming in today. congratulations on the shout-out. >> i was on his transition team, stuart, so he knows me. stuart: okay. i was falling off my seat. [laughter] shout-out there. thank you, michael. there is other news. less than an hour ago, we got the final reading on annual economic growth from the april to june quarter. it's 4.2%. art laffer's here, former reagan economist. you happy with that number be, 4.2%? >> i'm very happy. it's a very good beginning number. we need to do a lot of these, stuart, to really get the prosperity back, but it's a good start, and i'm really pleased

with it. stuart: okay. we're now in the july through september quarter. next month we get the official reading on how fast we're growing in this quarter. what do you think we're going to get, 4% -- >> i think we get something along the same lines. i would expect that that. by the way, i loved your coverage of the press conference. i watched the whole thing. it's phenomenal. i spent a little bit of time with him probably a week and a half ago in the oval office, and he's as good in private as he is in public. it's amazing, this man, and how he operates. he's just incredible. stuart: i've never seen a press conference like -- actually, i've never seen any president open up in such a direct fashion with any group of people ever. i've never seen that before. >> you know, he's an amazing person. i mean, you're right. the closest thing i've ever seen to this type of openness in discussion was with lady thatcher when she would have it down in parliament there. she was as good back and forth as anyone i've ever seen, but donald trump hits the issues

correctly. it's the not as though it's some sort of wild opinion, it's well thought out answers that are just done very quickly. and, susan, you did a great job, by the way -- enter oh, thank you. >> i loved watching you. coming right back at him and all of that. it was an amazing press conference, and the economy looks great too. stuart: oh, susan overshadows me. [laughter] >> no. no one can overshadow you, stuart. [laughter] no one can. stuart: before you go, art, let's get back to economics. >> sure. stuart: we've got the third rate increase, interest rate inincrease this year. the expectation of more to come. is that going to stifle the economy -- >> no -- stuart: -- or market rally? >> in fact, what you heard the president say in the press conference which i was really impressed with, you know, he's been a borrower all the time as businessman, and he loves low interest rates when he did all the trump production there. but he said, you know, higher interest rates means that older people get higher returns so there's more attraction of capital coming in. he was really good on interest

rates yesterday at the press conference, and i think powell's doing the right thing bringing those rates up to market rates, and i think that will help the economy, not hurt it. stuart: got the it. >> interest rates can be do too low and too high. you want that interest rate where demand equals supply, and then you'll maximize economic growth, and i'm really pleased with how that's working out as well. stuart: good stuff. art laffer, thanks for joining us. >> my pleasure, thank you. stuart: where are we going to open the market? well, we're going to be up again. it's despite it all we're going up maybe 30 points for the dow and about 25 for the nasdaq. amazon making a bigger push back into bricks and mortar. it's opening a new store in new york city. it's not one of those grab and go, cashierless things, no. we're going to tell you what you can get in this new store coming up shortly. mcdonald's trying to get healthier. it's taking preservatives and artificial ingredients out of most of its burgers. then we have uber. they're feeling the heat.

they're going to pay $148 million to settle claims that they covered up the data breach back in 2016. and this, the woman accusing brett kavanaugh of sexual misconduct will testify today, and president trump says he's going to be watching and keeping an open mind. you'll hear him say it after the break.

how do you win at business? stay at laquinta. where we're changing with contemporary make-overs. then, use the ultimate power handshake, the upper hander with a double palm grab. who has the upper hand now? start winning today. book now at lq.com. and i'm still going for my best even though i live with a higher risk of stroke due to afib not caused by a heart valve problem. so if there's a better treatment than warfarin, i'm up for that. eliquis. eliquis is proven to reduce stroke risk better than warfarin. plus has significantly less major bleeding than warfarin. eliquis is fda-approved and has both.

so what's next? seeing these guys. don't stop taking eliquis unless your doctor tells you to, as stopping increases your risk of having a stroke. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily and it may take longer than usual for any bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. eliquis, the number one cardiologist-prescribed blood thinner. ask your doctor if eliquis is what's next for you. the riskiest job. the consequences underwater can escalate quickly. the next thing i know, she swam off with the camera. it's like, hey, thats mine! i want to keep doing what i love.

that's the retirement plan. with my annuity i know there's a guarantee. annuities can provide protected income for life. learn more at retireyourrisk.org stuart: apple stock this morning, it is up sharply, $3 higher, nearly 1.5. why? jpmorgan says buy it, and apparently people are. the stock's up $3. president trump says, yes, he will be watching the kavanaugh/ford hearing today. roll tape. >> so as far as the other women are concerned, i'm going to see what happens tomorrow. i'm going to be watching. you know, believe it or not, i'm going to see what's said. it's possible that they will be

convincing. judge brett kavanaugh has been for many years one of the most respected people in washington. a lot of people know him well. and those people don't believe what's going on. i can always be convinced. i have to hear it. stuart: brad blakeman's here, former deputy assistant to george w. bush. all right, brad, let me go back a little bit here. none of this, this circus would not have happened had senator dianne feinstein revealed what she knew of this this charge against kavanaugh back in july when she received that letter. none of this would be happening had she done that. she's at fault. >> absolutely. and she was of no value to democrats as anonymous accuser. they had to out her in order to start this charade. but that was just the beginning. they wanted to lay -- because they knew they could other get false accusers, which we've seen happen. and then they wanted further delay in order to derail in this

confirmation. this is political assassination by a thousand cuts, but it's not going to happen. the president has more of an open mind than the democrats in the senate because even before brett kavanaugh was announced, they said they would never vote for a republican. so why are they even there today? they're there in order to make sure that by any cost, by any price including brett kavanaugh's constitutional right of his innocence to destroy him and thereby win a political nomination be they get power. -- if they get power. it's not going to happen. i know brett kavanaugh -- stuart: i mean, it is possible that today the democrats could really try very hard to shut the whole thing down and delay some more. they could be successful at that. there could be another delay whilst we investigate the new charges which have been brought in the last couple of days. this could happen. >> well, the only way brett kavanaugh is delayed or denied

is if republicans let it. we hold the majority on the committee. we hold the majority in the senate. all you need is a simple majority. if brett kavanaugh is delayed or denied, the republicans are to blame because we had the power. stuart: and what do you think will happen with those four republican senators who are at the moment on the fence who have not said they're going one way or the other? they really hold the key to whole thing -- republicans hold the key to it. >> there's no doubt. but if they're fair and if they believe in the constitution and they believe that brett kavanaugh has the right of the presumption of innocence and they understand that these allegations on their face are incapable of belief, they're neither corroborated nor were they brought to any law enforcement contemporaneous with when they allegedly happened. even eyewitnesses that are alleged said it never happened, it couldn't have happened. brett kavanaugh says it didn't

happen. no prosecutor would move on educations this threadbare -- on allegations this threadbare. so i'm confident that the republicans are going to stick with fairness, and they're going to stick with honesty, and they're going to stick with the reputation that brett kavanaugh has had over his entire lifetime, and he will be confirmed. stuart: okay. brad blake match, thanks. i'm sure you'll be watching. >> absolutely. stuart: thanks, brad. how are we going to open market ten minutes from now? how will we open? ever so slightly higher. maybe 30 points up for the dow, 27, 25 for the nasdaq composite. we're going up at the opening bell. during the president's news conference yesterday, cnn's jim acosta asked mr. trump to call on a female reporter. wait til you see how the president responded to that. we're less than 45 minutes away from the testimony of brett kavanaugh's first accuser. that is christine blasey ford. you, of course, will see it live right here.

i wanted more from my copd medicine... ...that's why i've got the power of 1-2-3 medicines with trelegy. the only fda-approved 3-in-1 copd treatment. ♪ trelegy. the power of 1-2-3 ♪ trelegy 1-2-3 trelegy with trelegy and the power of 1-2-3, i'm breathing better. trelegy works 3 ways to... ...open airways,... ...keep them open... ...and reduce inflammation... ...for 24 hours of better breathing. trelegy won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. trelegy is not for asthma. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. do not take trelegy more than prescribed. trelegy may increase your risk of thrush, pneumonia,

and osteoporosis. call your doctor if worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling,.. ...problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain occur. think your copd medicine is doing enough? maybe you should think again. ask your doctor about once-daily trelegy and the power of 1-2-3. ♪ trelegy 1-2-3 save at trelegy.com. i'm 85 years old in a job where. i have to wear a giant hot dog suit. what? where's that coming from? i don't know. i started my 401k early, i diversified... i'm not a big spender. sounds like you're doing a lot. but i still feel like i'm not gonna have enough for retirement. like there's something else i should be doing. with the right conversation, you might find you're doing okay. so, no hot dog suit?

not unless you want to. no. schedule a complimentary goal planning session today with td ameritrade®. stuart: stocks going up at the opening bell. that will be a few minutes from now. we're going to be up about 36. oh, look at this, please. sales down -- i don't mean just rising less fast, i'm talking sales down at bed bath and beyond. they got really intense competition, and they didn't give a very rosy outlook either. look what happened. down 18% on bed bath and beyond,

it's back to $15 a share. i'm going to go back to that astonishing press conference from president trump yesterday. listen to what cnn reporter jim acosta asked. roll tape. >> if you don't mind, after i'm finished if halle or vivian or one of our female colleagues could go after me, that would be great. mr. presidentmr. -- >> what does he mean by that? what does it mean? >> it would be great if a female reporter would ask you a question about this issue. so if you wouldn't mind -- >> i wouldn't mind it at all. wouldn't make any difference to me. go ahead. stuart: good lord. susan -- >> yeah. stuart: i won't pass judgment. oh, no, certainly not me. [laughter] you were at the press conference. what was it like? >> i found it so disingenuous. there were eye rolls. if he really wanted to be

chivalrous, why didn't he pass on the microphone to his female colleague or pass on the microphone himself? he had to take the opportunity for himself first, of course, right? stuart: who is he to tell our president how the president should organize a news conference? >> right. always making himself the story. he's supposed to be a journalist. ashley: he's not. you're right. that's exactly what it is. it'sal about me. i'm the center of this story. elizabeth: it's breathtakingly tedious grandstanding, and i don't think women journalists need a jim acosta to be their white knight. he acts like he himself embodies the first amendment, that he himself embodies free speech, and it's stunningly idiotic. and i think susan lee was a great reaction to roll your eyes and other women in the room. it came across slightly sexist -- >> i completely agree. and yet he was taking no action to do that except the make a statement -- ashley: give up his own spot. stuart: by contrast, susan lee, you were great. [laughter]

>> thank you. stuart: congratulations and well done. the market opens in less than five minutes' time. up about 35, maybe 38 on the dow. we'll be back. alerts -- wouldn't you like one from the market when it might be time to buy or sell? with fidelity's real-time analytics, you'll get clear, actionable alerts about potential investment opportunities in real time. fidelity. open an account today. fidelity. is important to me so father being diagnosed with advanced non-small cell lung cancer made me think of all the things that i wanted to teach my kids. (avo) another tru story with keytruda. (roger) my doctor said i could start on keytruda so i did. with each scan things just got better. (avo) in a clinical study, keytruda offered patients a longer life than chemotherapy. and it could be your first treatment. keytruda is for adults with non-small cell lung cancer

that has spread... ...who test positive for pd-l1 and whose tumors do not have an abnormal "egfr" or "alk" gene. advanced lung cancer. keytruda can cause your immune system to attack normal organs and tissues in your body and affect how they work. this can happen anytime during or after treatment and may be severe and lead to death. see your doctor right away if you experience new or worsening cough, chest pain, shortness of breath, diarrhea, severe stomach pain or tenderness, nausea or vomiting, rapid heartbeat, constipation, changes in urine, changes in eyesight, muscle pain or weakness, joint pain, confusion or memory problems, fever, rash, itching or flushing, as this may keep these problems from becoming more serious. these are not all the possible side effects of keytruda. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions including immune system problems, or if you've had an organ transplant or lung, breathing, or liver problems. (roger ) before i'd think of the stuff i might miss. but now with keytruda, we have hope. (avo) living longer is possible. it's tru. keytruda, from merck.

ask your doctor about keytruda.

and as if that wasn't badur brand new enough, totals it. now your insurance won't replace it outright because of depreciation. if your insurance won't replace your car, what good is it? you'd be better off just taking your money and throwing it right into the harbor. i'm gonna regret that. with new car replacement, if your brand new car gets totaled, liberty mutual will pay the entire value plus depreciation. liberty mutual insurance. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ stuart: now shortly, about 10:00 eastern time we're going to kick

off these hearings dr. christine ford and judge kavanaugh, how much attention that will take and take away from the stock market i'm not sure. there could be a pause in the trading volume today. all right we're off, running it is 9:30 on this thursday morning and we have openedded higher to tune of 35 point. 38 points. 35 points up 26,400 this that's how we've opened ever so slightly higher how about s&p show me that one up .20% as for nasdaq composite where is that up strongly, that's a 30 point gain that's better than one-third of one percent that implies to me that technology is doing just fine thank you this morning. how about -- the the tenure treasury yield, earlier this week he was at 3.11%. now it is come down of all -- >> all of that poured in there is safe haven.

it is safe haven money. 305 the tenure look at this bed, bath, beyond sales actually down not slowing they're down. getting a lot of competition more on that in a second bottom line they just opened down 19%. scott martin is with us so is jun and ashley webster here on the set in new york. start with the final reading of economic growth between april and what would it be june? that's the second quarter. 4.2%. john, i call that solid. is that pretty good news for the market? >> yeah i'm not sure solid is good enough but a fantastic number based on economic fund mentales of this economy that's doings fantastic. there's a front loading in that number but numbers that were slow so it should be rebuilt which has a good gdp number. >> raised rates for third time this year highest level since the bankruptcy of lehman all of

these years ago. come on in scott martin and you tell me these rate hikes which we are going to see in the future more to come. will that interrupt the economy's expansion? >> no. and i think that fed is doing the right thing. i know that president is not so much of a fan of higher interest rates stuart but ill tell you what feds the got door open nowed to do more interest hiking to do use pointed out my goodness on the way back to lehman bankruptcy are we kidding ourselves interest rates back to just normal any friend and following economy, following the the economic data. it is not going to choke off growth but make things feel more normal had is a good thing. >> exactly scott martin and person should take this as a implement because it shows fed is recognize aring how strong the economy is and we know -- we can stand on two feet mow because this economy and data is strong enough to support it. >> back one more time to the presidential press conference because it was so good a lot to say about trade and wrap up what he had to say. number one jamb agrees to

bilateral talks got that. administration not happy with mexico. got that. a deal could be coming soon to mexico but canada very different story. president trump told our own suzanne letha tariffs are too high and doesn't seem to want to move not having any impact on stock market this morning. but they are developments on trade. then we have ford motor company chief says that metaling the the tariffs on metal have cost that company ford, a billion dollars. already -- wal-mart j.c. penney procter & gamble saying whole thing price is is up because of tariffs. scott should we be -- is this -- a warning about the future of the economy? >> yeah. it last stewart, if the tariff talks escalate yeah this is a concern because here's the thing that's funny yes i get it. this is impacting ford and some of the other companies you mentioned. if you look at the ford stock price yeah it is probably in there too. but what eventually happens is it hits the consumer.

the companies that start losing money eventually start hitting consumer with high per pricest where we don't want this to go. >> wal-mart sent a letter to the president and u.s. trade representative light highser on dozens of products they are seeing that could see their prices rise. everything from dog food to christmas lights so we know that consumer spending component of this read on gdp3.8% pop up in consumer spedgedding consumer confidence is 18-year high. tofntle get back to autoissue if tariffs stand as they are, the extra cost per new vehicle 1800 to 5700 dollars more per vehicle. skts is that just ford? >> no that's across the board. >> made in america. yep. okay got it. that's significant. we've lost much of the early rally, it is up about 50 points at one stage now up five just shy of 26,400. conagra heard by lore demand

from products, food service outlook and stock is down 5% big drop of a company that size. spice people mccormick they're down 3.5%. look at wrightaid they lost money but lost sales do blangs here. how does that work out for investors a one stint loss. bed bath and yongd taking it on the chin today. not a very rosy outlook and they've got intense competition from the wal-marts and amazons of this world. so scott martin -- what do you make of bed bath and beyond. >> yikes what a disaster. where is will ferrell when you need him you know it is a lot of people on the weekends going to home depot for flooring wallpaper and enough time that's an old school movie reference. here's the thing you know they are feeling a lot of competition stuart but these days, retail especially these very specialty retile like bed, bath and beyond aren't drawing people in. >> even at the height of the

retail craze if you like. i hated the way those were laid out narrow islest with products piled high to the ceiling it was never easy to ma niewf the the best of times now you can click to have it delayed. >> you feel like claustrophobic like asthma attack and bed bath and yongd store and prices are high there. >> don't you get 20% off blue coupon everybody gets them. including me -- >> everybody -- amazon story of the day here we go. opening new store in new york soho neighborhood that sells items from its website rated four stars or above. give the people what they want, is that right, john? >> absolutely about look i own amazon stock for a reason and don't own bed bath and beyond retail used to be exact science you didn't know group together and where in the store it is now an a exact science to compete with amazon you have to have this massive data wal-mart can do that.

home depot can do that most stores can't. >> amazon this morning clough to 2,000 a share again. remember that forecast going to 3,000 dollars within two years from a leading investment firm yesterday. let's see about that. mcdonald's going healthy with its burger menu. the 7 classic mcdonald's burgers sold state side are now free from artificial preservative, flavors and or colors. they are the industry leader i think they say i guess other big chains have to follow that. >> turns out american cheese is full of artificial preservatives. and actually shocked of that. big mac same problem even buns have artificial preservatives. you know, i think they're putting in place what people want and i think it is smart move and they say they're not going to put on extrays cost because cost to do this are minimal. >> this is my favorite story of the day. what they are not going all natural with, though, are egg mcmuch and egg and business kit and french fries have preservatives in them. >> they taste great.

because they have a natural -- a beef flavoring to the french fry that's what the secret ingredient. yes, they do. >> how do you know that? >> i looked it up. flf that google is pretty good. [laughter] how about the price of oil this morning -- president trump called out opec in his press conference yesterday afternoon. first thing this morning, opec top producer saudi arabia saying we'll ramp up production to get prices down well that didn't work we're with at 72 a barrel and up ever so lightly. what did you -- what to do you make of this dance between opec and president john come in please. >> you can't trust opec they've lied king thely about quota so they say they're raverring up production they have ramped up what they're producing an say they're producing it is never the same. these companies -- most of the countries have a full spigot so you can't trust

them to presidents arguing with opec since 1950s and say the right thing bus they're going to do whatever they want to do. >> by the way i did notice that gas prices have started to move up. we're now at a national average of $287 cents up two tore lee in a few days on the way up if oil is at 72 a barrel and that's where we are. 9:40 eastern time almost got to say good-bye to john and to scott. thanks so much for being with with us. going to be a big day not necessarily on the markets. thank you, john, and scott check that big board it is a very, very narrow gain. i think there's a lot of attention going to be paid to the hearings. as opposed to the marketed today. i wonder what trading volume is going to be like today. we'll find out. we're about 20 minutes away from the hearing you will see it here live, of course. now, look at this for a minute pictures of the des moines news register. and inside the paper a special section pay the for by -- china's state run news agency. the president called that had

propaganda. we'll figure it out for you and discuss it, after this. as one of the nation's largest investors in infrastructure, we don't just help power the american dream, we're part of it. this is our era. this is america's energy era. nextera energy. this is america's energy era. each day our planet awakens but with opportunity comes risk. and to manage this risk, the world turns to cme group. we help farmers lock in future prices,

banks manage interest rate changes and airlines hedge fuel costs. all so they can manage their risks and move forward. it's simply a matter of following the signs. they all lead here. cme group - how the world advances.

modest gain hanging on there. 26,420 is where we are. how about facebook -- announcedded a new oculus vr headset no fancy computer needed a clom of shame at the new york stock exchanges is a attempt to virtual reality for the masses? >> that has been the goal since they bought this company stuart four years ago they paid $2 billion for "oculus" and made changes in the latest headset that may make it more appealing to the the screen there. the biggest thing they've done you mention nod computer, no phone needed. they have what they call full

positional tracking one that youngster seem to love and it will understand where the player is, you know, whether you kind of stand up, crouching down moving around that kind of thing not just where your head is sop if anyway stock up today facebook had struggles for other reasons but not this morning. >> i have a question about this vr headset you know goggles you're supposed to wear have they fixed the seasick problem? [laughter] >> i think so as they seem to think they have what i think this whole by the way no expert this have kind of stuff. but the full positional tracking i think is, you know, won't be just your head but your whole body. by the way, i think one thing you guys should think about far be it from i hope i'm not overstepping my boundary but maybe a section but ashley webster to get one with of these to broadcast "varney & company" like on the facebook page for fox business in virtual reality. to get their perpghtive of the show each morning. >> a danger right there i see

real risk. then you see -- when you talk -- >> varney viewers will not be made sick by virtual reality. >> whatever we say. i'm game. thanks donald. see you again soon. thank you very much indeed. all right, president trump china to try to influence our election. he tweeted this, pictures of the des moines register. inside the the paper there was a special section paid for by china's state run news agency. it was filled with prochina stories. but then very fine print very hard to read, it said it was. paid for by china -- mr. trump calls that propaganda. join us now tammy bruce women's voice president tammy is that -- this is first i heard of this. when the president says the chinese have been metaling in the elections -- does that constitute meddling? >> i think it actually constitutes propaganda classically it is messaging using media to influence the way

people think. about serious and important issues particularly political ones. now clearly, when the president is speaking, obviously, at the united nations, as nikki haley noted other day on fox and friends, is that he's speaking to individual leaders at the time focus on nature what have his agenda is so dealing with trade issues in china his argument is, of course, iowa is an important swing state. it has important when it comes to trade issue and farming. and it has that kind of an impact. if anything it ises a message to donald trump, that china is going to have an inflounce and if we're going to be talking about meddling and it's important not just covert meddling with with what russia is ding and hiding it but, in fact, being if the precinct is very small being really obvious about it. that's sending message politically but important for americans to know in our open system a number of countries try to influence us clearly. we've tried to influence other countries as well. the president, however, is very serious about sovereignty about

the importance this have but also about his tariffs, the dynamic of the trade agenda, and having that influence over china. >> just get on it. knock off the fine print. let's see who did this. don't go anywhere because i've got this for you. delaware senator chris kuhn saying the burden of proof lies with judge kavanaugh. watch this. >> it is judge kavanaugh who is seeking a lifetime appointment to the supreme court and who i think now bears the burden of proving allegations rather than dr. ford ramirez who should be dismissed with with slanderous allegations. >> you cannot prove a negative. you can't. >> he's not first one to say it that's especially disturbing it is not said in the heat of the moment and intimated this. others are are saying look this is he's got to prove he's innocent. this is literally stallennistic that's what you have in kangaroo

trial accuse someone of someone bring it in and say you know give with them very little detail and tell them to defend themselves and to prove that this is wrong. for a senator to take this position possibly, it is on obscene some say this is not a criminal court. our court system and system of law sending messagings about how we behave socially and in business, and personally, and we give our fellow americans and individuals that we deal with presumption that they are innocent of things you don't set seed into america that accusation against someone, at school or at home or in business or on the street is enough to condemn them. >> and for the government to engage in had this is obscene and the democrats are now revealing themselves for what they are. >> could be anybody. anybody -- >> it is so -- tammy is absolutely right. the democrats are operating on premise that an accusation is to a conviction. that is really bad for our society to set that standard.

and gives future incentives for future nomination proceedings to behave accordingly. so create can i yous like, you know, interruptions of questioning. cory booker i am spartacus moments cool manager this is not what wept for the future nomination process. >> what does it say to children chore watch the news as well and if their parents also say oh, okay this must be okay now. what does this say to kids then moving into the school system and they're point of view about what america means and what we stand for. what does it say to anybody come templating any candidate that any point in the future -- any man male candidate in the future -- don't do it because once you're accused. a nodges process, the vetting process any accusation must be accepted against you. and you're supposed to prove the negative. supposed to prove the --

new ground on how to handle these and never been here before. but not just men. people will say i guess you have to nominate women. still sexual harassment racism, god for bid were you a baby-sitter when you were 15 and left alone with children. or left alone or handled a class for sunday school at church, what else can be said that would be the allegation, the cues that the person, of just the finger pointing. that affects men and women. this is -- you know sexual harassment. certainly sexual assault, this goes to any kind of accusation. >> what do you got ash? >> so mad is once that accusation no matter how flimsy it is made you are tainted no way, there's no way with out of it. and it's a sad state of affairs to be honest with you. >> what we're doing here, we are trashing the reputation and destroy the career of a good man. brett kavanaugh. that's what we're doing.

not presumed to be innocent but presumed to be guilty. in fact -- live with this forever. facts are in doubt by people of bringing information. so you know, that's the issue too. i mean welcome again the article of faith is believe accusers, i'm not sure about about that. >> absolutely not sure about that. take accusers seriously if they should be taken seriously. >> we're moments away from the start of the kavanaugh hearing. but we already know what christine ford will say during her opening statement. we know this edward lawrence has a preview for us. tell us edward what going to say? >> exactly yeah christine ford team said she's prepared for this. here's her testimony in it she says qet i'm terrified i am here only because -- i believe it is my civic duty to tell you what happened to me, whilebred kavanaugh and i were in high school apart from assault itself these past couple of week have been hardest of my life and goes on in testimony to say she was at a party with 14 boys one of them kavanaugh she

said what she went upstairs she was pushed into a bedroom. then said, quote, i was pushed on to the bed. and brett got on top of me running his handle and grinding hips into me i yelled hopeing someone might hear me i tried to get away from him but his weight heavy he groped me an tried to take off my clothes and testify will cav ma was so drunk she was able to push him off. eventually get out of the room and eventually get out of the house. she did say that in the testimony there's no at a time as to when this happened. also in this testimony, it says that it happened somewhere in one of two maryland cities and judiciary staff on hall of the second ploor floor of the senate building hasser cleared hall to make sure that arrival will be seemless for dr. ford when she does come many and security locked down a hall a number of protesters who were outside trying to get many. they have made sure that only credential folks who were on that floor and getting into that hearing and be expect had this hearing to start request democrats voice their objections

and asking for delays as well as an fbi investigation. stew. >> are we tboipg it see dr. ford when she arrives any acknowledge of that? >> see her walk down the hallway i believe had is cameras in the hall wage waiting for that arrival again senate staff, judiciary staff cleared hall of most other people so a seemless walk for her inside hearing. >> that shot on the lngd side of the screen that is where we will see dr. ford arrived a hearing room. the prosecutor rachel mitchell right there on the center of your screen right there. rachel mitchell the prosecutor, she will be asking questions she from arizona. she's an experience sex crime prosecutor and she'll be asking many of the questions today. tammy bruce -- you just heard what dr. ford is going to say. i picked up on she says she is terrified. what do you think of that? >> intimidating thing to do.

is to go in there -- but i think the real burden is going to be on the democrat senators. recall in the first hearing, the circus that they created. i am spartacus the theater was all about them. the american people are going to be -- whole point here is about due press and fairness, and if she's going to everyone is getting fair hearing -- the democrats in their behavior is going to whether that's going to be the case. and i don't know if that i going to be able to restrain thelses. so kin cynical and could have had a bipartisan investigation without having to reveal identity of dr. ford but that was -- they waited it wasn't -- it that was not the intent at all. it was to release that letter at the peak optimum time to create exactly what is being done today. no male republican will ask a question of dr. ford today. they passed that on to rachel mitchell a woman who will ask the question to another woman.

>> a deep politicize the the process but i hear what you're trying to say. >> are are we now in a position where a male senator do his job or request a question because he's a minnesota? >> in this situation it is a optimum situation to have someone who understands these crimes, these allegation who is knows what to ask. remember what this is going to be there's not going to be drama. it is not going to be a television detective show but a list of questions to inquire to make determinations to make a report, obviously, to the senate. for both individual -- so it is beginning to be very methodical and eliminates ability of democrats because what i think they wanted honestly are -- television commercials campaign commercials for the the midterm. that's what they wanted. this does eliminate that but it also was better scenario to get to the truth of the matter. >> they'll get that opportunity when they question -- judge kavanaugh. yes, they'll be all over him they'll be very harsh with him

this afternoon. >> again that's the drama for the democrats for everyone involved here is is will the american people be left with a sense that this was fir and comes down to entire charade is this a fair way to proceed with these individuals going through this for their family and for the country? >> there is senator kuhns we just showed moments ago -- >> doesn't believe in innocence. doesn't believe in innocence until proven guilty. he's presuming kavanaugh guilty. : point out this is really a job interview not a criminal proceeding. right -- so it is gipping to come down to who do you trust brett kavanaugh or do you trust christine ford dr. ford, and i've read her testimony, and you know, she does make certain point about why -- the information came out the way it did. she asked dianne feinstein to not release it. dianne feinstein you know honored that i don't know who leaked it we don't know who leaked the information in early september. the other point she made about the therapy session about why --

this came out in therapy session this was -- alleged assault. because she said well we were remodelling our house and asking another escape route that was new detail we hadn't seen before and question in therapy was why ask front two tores and then allegation unfolded in therapy session. so it really cools down to who do you believe going forward? >> and what tone will be used? by judge kavanaugh, that intrigues me. if you go back to the thomas hearings of the early 1990s clarence thomas took on his committees. he responded vigorously to them. >> inspector went after anita hill so that you're right about tone here, because republicans are walking a fine line. we do know certain red state democrats might be on sense as well including joe mansion and donnelly. >> will judge kavanaugh go after and respond forcefully to the democrats on the judiciary committee will he do that and do what clarence thomas did it a

lot of years ago? >> you take the martha interview and where he seemed very subdued in a way, very gentle in the nature of the framework but if you look at transcript it looks very different. the the nature of looking at literal aspect of what was said, verses his demeanor, changed the framework. same thing like with the nixon kennedy debate right -- how it sounded to people on radio versus how it looked on tv. it was different. >> i see sol rngd side of jr. screen i see someone escorted and i do not know that senator grassley i do not know lady with him. but that is -- he's the the chair of the senate judiciary committee just walking into the -- >> we should point out it is terrible that dr. ford is now facing threats including -- as well as her family. that is not who we are. as a country -- yes. he too. a failure of senator feinstein,

and the democrats that every single one of the participants here now is in such a dramatically life changing position. i've been argue aing for a couple of weeks now that -- the problem with bringing up weak corroborate ared evidence that farcical that is damage to every single woman who has had real experiences of sexual with violence domestic violence because for over a generation we've been arguing that women should be taken seriously, in fact. that we should be able to get justice but that involves due process. the other way for women to be believed for process to be trusted. so that the end result can be trusted. >> well said. we've been watching the republican senators arrive i've seen their senator kennedy -- senator jeff flake and seen the chair senator grassley walk in. republicans are assembling i'm

not sure whether democrats are are already in there. but the start time is officially 10:00 eastern time it is about 1 away so any mommy now we do expect probably right-hand side of jr. screen dr. ford making her way into the hearing room. the stage is set -- i think just about every tv station is with the exception of the weather channel is probably going to be tuned to this. weather channel is not our main competitor. americans want this to get done so we can get on with the business of this nation. >> okay. here we go. judge kavanaugh -- it and his accuser dr. christine blasey ford are about to begin the most divisive supreme court hearing in a generation. it's already a degrading circus like spectacle. today it may get worse. didn't have to be this way. senator dianne feinstein knew about allegation from dr. ford for months but did not reveal it until the last minute.

there could have been a full investigation already. but the democrats only wanted to ambush the judge as a way to delay and derail are his confirmation. as karl rose says this morning, she senator feinstein has brought dishonor to her decades in the senate. there is another last-minute allegation from the client of a porn star lawyer claims judge kavanaugh drank at excess over 35 years ago that she was gang rape ared at one of them democrats will use her unproven and vague allegation to demand a delay. get ready for another spartacus moment from smart cory booker, probably some grand standing from likely presidential candidate kamala harris. the whole process has been hijacked this is my opinion, hijacked by the left. deliberate democrats will do anything, i mean anything to stop a conservative getting on supreme court. they have already slimed judge

kavanaugh by insisting on his guilt. they haves toed out the presumption of innocence which is surely the the cornerstone of our entire legal system and they've stained the supreme court. they have ruined the nominating process for any candidate for public office. from now on, unproven, uncorroborated allegations can derail anyone and destroy their it reputation forever. this is the the deliberate undermining of all that we hold dear in america. all about to unfold and we'll show it to you. all right here's who we are to break things down. bring in liz peek with us this morning. there you are i'm sorry with us this morning -- ron forger communication strategist for justice gorsuch tammy bruce independent womens voice president all still with us now. i believe we are still waiting for the arrival of dr. christine ford, she's not yet entered the the hearing room. we expect to see her coming down that corridor and rngd side of your screen --

she should be joining that hearing room any moment now. liz pique you just heard me -- it wasn't a rant. ives trying to -- >> i think you said what we are all feeling that it is a who whr show and completely changed forever the way we look at nominees, and go through these process this is a horrific really horrific distinct. i don't know about the rest of you i'm ready for it to be over tammy to your point because i can't fobs on anything else this is so upsetting i think everyone that everyone i know -- has made up their mind. and they're upset about it one way or another. and it is -- it it is just -- most divisive thing that's ever happened in our country. i think that honestly one of them in any case. >> only possible winner from all of this is the the far left if they fail -- if judge kavanaugh nomination fails. that they are the only winner here. and i question whether that is really win withing at all by i

think they are winner. >> but that tells american people a great deal something that destroy our process and sends signals to our society in general -- that we're in a stall framework there will be some people who think that's a good thing and we need to consider about that what we want for the future how we do view this and i would argue that unlike that clarence thomas situation which was in 19 9 o cell phone, no internet, no e-mail all been amplified we have way, but still we also have ways after the fact to not let this infect the the rest of the system in the situation and to -- at least restore judge kavanaugh rep taking. >> question is show should these allegations be handled in the future? do you prevent it like as followed because admittedly this senate drama may have implications for the midterms and markets. so in the the future how do you handle allegations as those

presented by dr. ford and others -- >> maybe it is like a piece of legislation when you have a nominee you put the nail out there. you give two months or something like that -- for inquiries, commentaries and by the way the judiciary has had people investigating these charge it is isn't like there's been no follow-up on the letters and accusations and so forth. there has been -- >> i've made a mistake i thought that dr. ford had not yet arrived in hearing room she has arrived we were expecting her to walk down hallway perhaps to the media right there but she did not choose -- she came in very quietly. and she is now seated. that -- >> difficult day for dr. very difficult day for everyone and their families. >> yes. we want to hear from dr. ford. the question about that -- is just -- it came forward as a last-minute organized attempt to ambush almost orchestrated. >> i wouldn't want to be in her

shoe or kavanaugh shoes proving something didn't take place is almost imbl and more about his demeanor and what she has to say too and i would not want to be the -- prosecutor or the investigators. >> i believe i heard a gavel -- a gavel to order there. >> this morning we will listen in now. >> we continue our hearing on the nomination of judge brett kavanaugh justice on our supreme court. we will hear from two witnesses dr. christine blasey ford, and judge kavanaugh. thanks, of course, to dr. ford and judge kavanaugh for accepting our committees invitation to testify and thank them for their volunteering to testify before we even invited. both dr. ford and judge kavanaugh have been through a terrible couple of weeks.

they and their families have received vile threats. what they have endured ought to be considered by all of us as unacceptable and a poor reflection on the state of civility in our democracy. so i want to apologize to you both for the the way you've been treated. and i intend hopefully for today's hearing to be safe, comfortable and dignified for both of our witnesses. i hope my colleagues will join me in this effort of a show of civility. with that said, i lament that this hearing how this hearing has come about. on july 9th -- 2018, the president announced judge kavanaugh nodges to serve

on the supreme court. judge kavanaugh has served on the most important federal apeel appellate court for 12 years. before that he held some of the most sensitive positions in the federal government. the president added judge kavanaugh to his short list of supreme court, more than nine months ago. in november 2017, as part of judge kavanaugh nomination of supreme fbi conducted his sixth, full field background investigation of judge kavanaugh since 1993, 25 years ago. nowhere in any of these six fbi reports which committee investigators have reviewed on a bipartisan basis was there a whiff of any issue, any issue at all related in any way to

inappropriate sexual behavior. dr. first raised her allegation it is in secret letter to the ranking member nearly two months ago in july. this letter was secret from july 30th, september 13th to no july 30th until september 13th when i first heard about it. the ranking member took no angst. the letter was not shared with me, colleagues or my staff. these allegations could have been investigated in a way that maintained the confidentiality that dr. ford requested. before his hearing, judge kavanaugh meant privately with 65 senators including the ranking member. but the ranking member didn't ask judge kavanaugh about

allegations when she met with him privately in august. the senate judiciary committee held a four-day public hearing from september 4th to september 7th. judge kavanaugh testified for more than 32 hours in public. we held a closed session for members to ask sensitive question withs on that -- on the last evening. which ranking member did not attend. judge kavanaugh answered nearly 1300 written questions submitted by senators after the hearing. more than all prior supreme court nominees. throughout this period we did not know about the ranking members secret evidence. then only at an 11th hour on the eve of judge kavanaugh's confirmation, did the ranking member refer the the allegations to the fbi. and then sadly, the allegations were leaked to the press. and that's where dr. ford was

mistreated. this is a shameable way to treat our witness who insisted on confidentiality and -- of course, judge kavanaugh who has had to address these allegations in the midst of a media surface. when i received dr. ford's letter on september the 13th, my staff and i recognize ared the seriousness of these allegations and immediately began our committees investigation consistent with with the way the committee has handled such allegations in the past. every step of the way, the democratic side refused to participate in what should have been a bipartisan investigation as far as i know on all of our judgeships throughout at least the last four years. or three years that's been the the way it has been handled. after dr. ford's identity became

public, my staff contacted all of the individuals she said attended the 1982 party described in "the washington post" article. judge kavanaugh immediately submitted to an interview under penalty of felony for any knowingly false statements. he denied the allegations categorially, democratic staff was invited to participate. and could have asked any questions he wanted to but they declined. which leads me then to wonder -- if the really concern with going to the truth why wouldn't you want to talk to the accused? the process and procedure is what the committee always does when we receive allegations of wrong doing. my staff reached out to other individuals allegedly at the party. mark judge patrick smith leyland kaiser, all three submitted statements to the senate under -- under penalty of felony denying

any knowledge of the events described by dr. ford. dr. ford's lifelong friend ms. kaiser -- stated she doesn't know judge kavanaugh and doesn't recall ever attending party with him. my staff made repeated requests to interview dr. ford during past 11 days. even volunteers to fly to california to take her testimony but her attorneys refused to prevent, present her allegations to congress. i never -- i never the last honored a request for a public hearing. so doctor ford today has the opportunity to prevent her allegations under oath. as you can see, the the judiciary committee was able to conduct thorough investigations into allegations thorough investigations into allegations. some of my colleagues consistent with with stated desires to obstruct by any means precise --

by any means necessary for fbi investigations into the allegations. but i have no authority to force the executive branch agency to conduct an investigation into a matter considers to be closed moreover once allegations become, became public it was easy to identify all of the alleged witnesses and conduct our own investigations. contrary to what the public has been led to believe, the fbi doesn't perform any credibility assessments or verify the truth of any events in these background investigations. i'll quote then chairman joe biden during justice thomas kinches hear hadding this is what senator biden said, quote, the next person who refers to an fbi report as being worth anything, obviously, doesn't

understand anything. the fbi explicitly does not in this or any other case reach a conclusion, period. they say he, he said -- she said, they said, period. so when people wave an fbi report before you, understand they do not. they do not, they do not reach conclusions. they do not make recommendations end of senator biden's quote. the fbi provided us with the allegations. now it's up to the senate to assess their credibility. which brings us to this very time. i look forward to a fair and respectful hearing. that's what we promised dr. ford. some of my colleagues have complained about fact that an expert on this side is investigating sex crimes will be

questioning the witness. i see no basis for complaint other than just plain politics. but testimony we will hear today concerns allegations of sexual with assault, very serious allegations. this is a incredibly sensitive subject to discuss and not an easy one to discuss that's why senators on this side believe an exwith deep experience and training and interviewing victims of sexual assault and investigating sexual assault led allegations should be asking questions. this will be a stark con straint to grand standing chaos that we saw from the other side during the previous four days in this hearing process. i can think of no one better equipped to ask questions than rachel mitchell a prosecutor,

civil servant with decades of experience investigating prosecuting sex crimes. she's dedicated her career to seeking justice for survivors of sex-related felonies. most recently rachel was a division chief of the suspect division marewhich has family violence and then governor janet napolitano previously recognized her as the outstanding arizona sexual assault prosecutor of the year. and she's spent years instructing prosecutors, detectives, and child protection workers on how to properly interview victims of sexual assault and abuse. with her aid, i look forward to a fair and productive hearing. i understand that there are two other public allegation as today hearing was scheduled to --

in close consultation with dr. ford's attorneys and testimony will be subject of this hearing. we've been rying to investigate other allegations at this time, we've not had cooperation from attorneys representing other cloints and they have made no attempt to substantiate their claims my staff has tried to secure testimony and evidence from attorneys for both -- deborah ramirez and julie sweetnick my staff made eight requests yes eight requests for evidence from attorneys for ms. ramirez. and six requests for evidence for attorneys for ms. sweetnick neither attorney made clients available for interview. the committee can't do an investigation if attorneys are stone walling. i hope y'all understand that we

have attempted to seek additional information as we do a lot of times when there are holes in what we call the b.i. reports. additionally all of the witness who should know by when i say all of the witnesses, i mean, dr. ford and i mean judge kavanaugh. all of the witness should know that they have the right under senate rule 26.5 to ask that the committee go into closed session if a question requires an answer that is a clear invasion of their right to privacy. if dr. prd own judge kavanaugh believe that ought to be involved, they should simply say so. senator feinstein. >> thank you very much mr. chairman i'll make a brief comment on your references to me.

yes, i did receive a letter from dr. ford. it was conveyed to me by a member of congress on an issue. the next day, i called dr. ford. we spoke on the phone. she reiterated that she wanted this held confidential, and i held it confidential. up to a point where the witness was willing to come forward. and i think as i make my remarks perhaps you'll see why. because how women are treated in the united states with this kind of concern is really wanting a lot of reform. and i'll get to that for a minute. but in the meantime, good morning dr. ford. thank you for coming forward and being willing to share your story with us. i know that wasn't easy for you. but before you get to your testimony,ing and the chairman chose not to do this, i think it

is important to make sure you're properly introduced. and i have to -- >> i was going to introduce her but if you want to be i'll be glad to have you do that but i didn't forget to do it because i would do that just as she was about to speak. >> thank you. i have to say when i saw your cv i was extremely impressed. you have a bachelors degree from the university of north carolina. chapel hill, two master's degrees, one from stanford, and one from pepper dime and ph.d. from the university of southern california. better known to senator harrison as usc. you are a professor affiliated with both stanford university and palo alto university. you have published over 65 peer reviewed articles and have received numerous awards for your work and research. and as if that were not enough, you are a wife, a mother of two sons, and a constituent from california.

so i am very grateful to you for your strength and your bravery in coming forward. i know it's hard. but before i turn it over -- or i want to say something about what is to be discussed today and where we are as a country. sexual violence is a serious problem. and one that largely goes unseen. in the united states it's estimated by the centers for disease control one in three women and one in six men will experience some form of sexual violence in their lifetime. according to the rape abuse and incest national network 60% of sexual assaults go unreported. in addition, when survivor do report their assaults it is often years later due to the trauma they suffered and fearing their stories will not be

believed. last week, i received a letter from a 60-year-old california constituent who told me that she survived an attempt of rape at age 17. she described as being terrified and embarrassed. she never told a soul until much later in life. the the assault stay with her for 43 years. i think it is important to remember these realities as we here from dr. ford about her experience. there's been a great deal of public discussion about the me too movement today versus the year of the woman almost 27 years ago. but while young women are standing up and saying no more, our institutions have not progressed in how they treat women who come forward. too often women's memories and credibility come under assault. in essence, they are put on

trial and forced to defend themselves. and often revictimized in the process. 27 years ago, i was walking through an airport when i saw a large group of people gathered around a tv to listen to anita hill tell her story. what i saw was an attractive woman in a blue suit before all-male judiciary committee speaking about her experience of sexual harassment. she was treated badly. accuseed of lying, attacked, and her credibility put to the test throughout the process. today, dr. christine blasey ford has come forward to tell her story of being assaulted and fearing for her life. when she was a teenager -- initially as i said dr. ford did not want to make her story public.

then within 36 hours of coming forward, republicans schedule a hearing without talking to her or even inviting her to testify. she was told she had to show up for the -- or the committee would move forward with a vote. it took a public outcry for -- from majority excuse me for the majority to back down and give her even a few days to come before the committee. republicans also scheduled this hearing with dr. ford, without having her allegations investigated by the fbi. in 1991, anita hill's allegations were reviewed by the fbi as is the normal process and squarely within its jurisdiction. however, despite repeated requests, president trump and the republicans have refused to

take this routine step and direct the fbi to conduct an impartial investigation. this would clearly be the the best way to ensure a fair process to both judge kavanaugh and to dr. ford. in 1991, the senate heard from 22 witnesses over three day. today, while rejecting an fbi investigation, republicans are refusing to hear testimony from any other witness. including mark judge who dr. ford identified as being in the room when the attack took place. and we believe judge should be subpoenaed so that committee can hear from him directly. republicans should also refuse to call anyone who could speak to the evidence that would support or refute dr. ford's

claim. and not one witness who could address credibility and character of either ford or kavanaugh has been called. what i find most inexcusable is this rush to judgment. the unwillingness to take these kinds of allegation as at face value and look at them for what they are. a real question of character for someone who was asking for a lifetime appointment on the supreme court. in 1991, republicans belittled professor hill's experience saying, and i quote, it won't make a bit of difference in the outcome, end quote, and the burden of proof was on professor hill. today, our republican colleagues are saying this is a hiccup. dr. ford is mixed up.

and declaring i'll listen to the lady, but we're going to bring this to a close. what's worse, many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have also made it clear that no matter what happens today, the senate will plow right through and ensure judge kavanaugh would be elevated within a week. in fact, on tuesday, the majority went ahead and scheduled a vote on the nomination before we heard one word of testimony regarding allegations of sexual assault and misconduct by brett kavanaugh. republican leadership even told senators they should plan to be in over oh this weekend so the nomination can be pushed through without delay. this is despite the fact that in the last few days, two more women have come forward with their own serious allegations of sexual assault involving brett

kavanaugh. this past sunday, we learned about debbie ramirez who was a student at yale with brett kavanaugh she too did not want to come forward. but after being approached by reporters, she told her story. she was at a college party where kavanaugh exposed himself to her. she recalls pushing him had away and seeing him laughing and pulling his pants up. then yesterday, judy swetnick came forward that she had experiences being at house parties with brett kavanaugh and mark judge. she recounted kavanaugh engage, in what i quote, abusive and physically aggressive behavior towards girls, end quote, including attempts to, quote, remove or shift girls clothing, end quote. no taking quote, no, for an

answer, grabbing girls without their consent, end quote, and targeting particular girls so they cab taken advantage of, end quote. each of these stories are troubling on their own and each of these allegations should be investigated by the fbi. all three women have said they would like the fbi to investigate. please do so. all three have said they have other witnesses and evidence to corroborate their accounts and yet, republicans continue to blindly push forward. so today we're moving forward with a hearing and being asked to assess the credibility of brett kavanaugh. he has made several statements about how his focus was on school, basketball, service

projects, and going to church. he declared, he quote, never, end quote, drank so much he couldn't remember what happened and he has quote, always treated women with dignity and respect. end quote. and while he is has made these declarations more and for people have come forward, challenging his characterization of events and behaviors. james roche, his freshman roommate at yale stated kavanaugh was, i quote again, frequently incoherently drunk, end quote. and that was, when, quote, he became aggressive and belligerent, end quote, when he was drunk. liz swisher, a friend of his from yale said, and i quote, there is no medical way i can say that he was blacked out but it is not credible for him to say that he has no memory lapses in the nights that he drank to

excess, end quote. lynn brooks, a college classmate said that the picture kavanaugh is trying to paint doesn't her memories of him. and i quote, he is trying to paint himself as some kind of choir boy. you can't lie your way on to the supreme court, and with that statement out, he has gone too far. it is about the integrity of the institution, end quote. ultimately members and ladies and gentlemen, i really think that's the point. we're here to decide whether to evaluate this nominee to the most prestigious court in our country. it is about the integrity of that institution and the integrity of this institution. the entire country is watching how we handle these allegations. i hope the majority changes their tactics, opens their mind

and seriously reflects on why we are here. we are here for one reason, to determine whether judge kavanaugh should be elevated to one of the most powerful positions in our country. this is not a trial of dr. ford. it's a job interview for judge kavanaugh. is brett kavanaugh, who we want on the most prestigious court in our country. is the best we can do? thank you, mr. chairman. >> yeah. i'm sorry you brought up about the unsubstantiated allegations of other people because we're here for the sole pure of listening to dr. ford and will consider other issues, other times. i would like to have you rise so i can swear you.

now do you swear that the testimony you're about to give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but truth, so help you god? >> i do. >> thank you very. please be sweeted before you give your statement i want to say that, to everybody that she has asked for anytime you ask for a break, you get a break. anytime there is something that you need you don't have just ask us. and you can have as much time for your opening statement as you want. and just generally let us know if there is any issues. proceed, please. >> thank you, senator grassily. i think after i read my opening statement i anticipate needing some caffeine, if that is available. >> okay. can you pull the microphone just a little bit closer to you,

please. >> okay. >> can the whole box go a little bit closer in. >> i'm trying, senator. no. >> i will lean forward. >> thank you. >> is this good? >> yeah. >> okay. thank you chairman grassley and ranking member feinstein, members about the committee. my name is christine blasey ford. i'm a professor of psychology at palo alto university and a research psychologist as the stanford university school of medicine. i won't detail my educational background since it already has been summarized. i have been married to russell ford since 2002 and we have two children. i am here today not because i want to be. i am terrified. i am here because i believe it is my civic duty to tell you what happened to me while brett kavanaugh and i were in high school. i have described the events

publicly before. i summarized them in my letter to ranking member feinstein and again in a letter to chairman grassley. i understand and appreciate the importance much your hearing from me directly about what happened to me and the impact this had on my life and my family. i grew up in the suburbs of washington, d.c. i attended the holton arms school in bethesda, maryland from 1978 to 1984. holton arms is an all girl school that opened in 1901. during my time at school, holton arms frequently met and became friends with all boys school in the area, land done school, georgetown prep, gonzaga high school as well as our country clubs and other places where kids and families socialized. this is how i met brett kavanaugh, the boy who sexually assaulted me.

during my freshman and sophomore school years, when i was 14 and 15 years old, my group of friends intersected with bret and his friend for a short. i had been friendly with classmate of bret's for a short time during my freshman and sophomore year, and through that connection i attend ad number of parties that bret also attended. we did not know each other well. but i knew him and he knew me. in the summer of 1982, like most summers, i spent most every day at the columbia country club in chevy chase, maryland, swimming and practicing diving. one evening that summer after a day of diving at the club i attended a small gathering at a house in the bethesda area. there were the four boys i remember specifically being at the house. brett kavanaugh, mark judge, a boy named p.j., and one another

boy whose name i cannot recall. i also remember my friend leland attending. i do not remember all of the details of how that gathering came together but like many that summer it was almost surely a spur of the moment gathering. i truly wish i could be more helpful with more detailed answers to all of the questions that have and will be asked about how i got to the party and where it took place and so forth. i don't have all the answers and i don't remember as much as i would like to but the details that, about that night that bring me here today are the ones i will never forget. they have been seared into my memory and have haunted me episodically as an adult. when i got to the small gathering, people were drinking beer in a small living room, family room type area on the first floor of the house. i drank one beer.

bret and mark were visibly drunk. early in the evening i went up a very narrow set of stairs, leading from the living room to a second floor to use the restroom. when i got to the top of the stairs i was pushed from behind into a bedroom across from the bathroom. i couldn't see who pushed me. bret and mark came into the bedroom and locked the door behind them. there was music playing in the bedroom. it was turned up louder by either bret or mark once we were in the room. i was pushed on to the bed and bret got on top of me. he began running his hands over my body and grinding into me. i yelled, hoping that someone downstairs might hear me, and i tried to get away from him but his weight was heavy. bret groped me and tried to take

off my clothes. he had a hard time because he was very inebirated and because i was wearing a one-piece bathing suit under my clothing. i believe he was going to rape me. i tried to yell for help. when i did, bret put his hand over my mouth, stopped me from yelling. this is what terrified me the most and this had the most lasting impact on my life. it was hard for me to breathe and i thought bret was accidentally going to kill me. both bret and mark were drunkenly laughing during the attack. they seemed to be having a very good time. mark seemed ambivalent at times, urging bret on and at times telling him to stop. a cowell of times i made eye contact with mark and thought he might rye to help me but he did

not. during the assault, mark came over and jumped on the bed twice while yet was on top of me. the last time that he did this, we toppled over and brett was no longer on top of me. i was able to get up and run out of the room. directly across from the bedroom was a small bathroom. i ran inside of the bathroom and locked the door. i waited until i heard brett and mark leave the bedroom, laughing and loudly walked down the narrow stairway, pinballing off the walls on the way down. i waited and when i did not hear them come back up the stairs i left the bathroom, went down the same stairwell, through the living room and left the house. i remember being on the street and feeling enormous sense of relief that i escaped that house and that brett and mark were not coming outside after me.

brett's assault on me drastically altered my life for a very long time. i was too afraid and ashamed to tell anyone these details. i did not want to tell my parents that i at age 15 was in a house without any parents present drinking beer with boys. i convinced myself that because brett did not rape me, i sudden just move on and just pretend that it didn't happen. over the years i told very, very few friend that i had this traumatic experience. i told my husband before we were married that i had experienced a sexual assault. i had never told the details to anyone, the specific details until may 2012 during a couples counseling session. the reason this came up in counseling is that my husband and i had completed a very

extensive, very long, remodel of our home and i insisted on a second front door an idea that he and others disagreed with and could not understand. in spaining why i wanted a second front door i began to describe the assault in detail. i recall saying that the boy who assaulted me could some day be on the u.s. supreme court and spoke a bit about his background at an elitest all boy school in bethesda maryland. my husband recalls that i named my attacker as brett kavanaugh. after that may 2012 theirpy session i did my best to ignore the memories of the assault because recounting them caused me to relive the experience and caused pan fick -- panic and anxiety. occasionally i would discuss the assault in an individual therapy session but talking about it

caused more reliving of the trauma. so i tried not to think about it or discuss it. but over the years i went through periods where i thought about the attack. i had confided in some close friends that i had had an experience with sexual assault. occasionally i stated that my assailant was a prominent lawyer or judge but i did not use his name. i do not recall each person i spoke to about bret brett's assault, some reminded me of the allegations since the publication of "the washington post" story on december 16th, 2018, but until july 2018 i had never named mr. kavanaugh as my attacker outside of therapy. this changed in early july 2018. i saw press reports stating that brett kavanaugh was on the short list of a list of very well-qualified supreme court

nominees. if i thought it was my civic duty to relay the information i had about mr. kavanaugh's so that those considering his nomination would know about this assault. on july 6th, i had a sense of urgency to relay the information to the senate and the president as soon as possible before a nominee was selected. i did not know how specifically to do this. i have called my congressional representative and let her reception it know that someone on the president's short list had attacked me. i also sent a message to the encrypted "washington post" confidential tipline. i did not use my name but i provided the names of brett kavanaugh and mark judge. i stated that mr. kavanaugh had assaulted me in the 1980s in maryland. this is an extremely hard thing for me to do but i felt that i couldn't not do it.

over the next two days i told a couple of close friends on the beach in california that mr. kavanaugh sexually assaulted me. i was very conflicted as to whether to speak out. on july 9th, i received a return phone call from the office of congresswoman anna eschoo after mr. kavanaugh had become the nominee. i met with her staff on jewel 18th and with her on july 20th, describing the assault and discussing my fears of about coming forward. later we discussed the possibility of sending a letter to ranking member feinstein who is one of my state senators describing what occurred. my understanding is that representative eshoo's office delivered a copy of my letter to dr. feinstein's office on jewel 30th. the letter included my name but

the request that it be kept confidential. my hope was that providing the information confidentially would be sufficient to allow the senate to consider mr. kavanaugh's serious misconduct without having to make myself, my family or anyone's family vulnerable to the personal attacks and invasions of privacy that we have faced since my name became public. in a letter dated august 31st, senator feinstein wrote that she would not share the letter without my explicit consent and i appreciated this commitment. sexual assault victims should be able to decide whether and when the private experience be made public. as the hearing date got closer i struggled with a terrible choice. do i share the facts to the senate and put myself and my family in the public spotlight or do i preserve our privacy and

allow the senate to make its decision without knowing the full truth of his past behaviors? i agonized daily with this decision throughout august and september of 2018. the sense of duty that originally motivated me to reach out confidentially to "the washington post" and to anna eshoo's office when there was a list of extremely well qualified candidates and to senator feinstein was always there, but my fears of the consequences of speaking out started to exponentially increase. during august 2018 the press reported that mr. kavanaugh's confirmation was virtually certain. persons painted him as a champion of women's rights and empowerment. and i believed that if i came forward, my single voice would be drowned out by a chorus of

powerful supporters. by the time of the confirmation hearings i had resigned myself to remaining quiet, and letting the committee and the senate make their decision without knowing what mr. kavanaugh had done to me. once the press started reporting on the existence of the letter i had sent to senator feinstein i faced mounting pressure. reporters appeared at my home and at my work place, demanding information about the letter in the presence of my graduate students. they called my bosses and coworkers and left me many messages, making it clear my name would inevitably be released to the media. i decided to speak out publicly to a journal history who had originally responded to the tip that i had sent to the "washington post" and who had gained my trust t was important for me to describe the details of the assault in my own words.

since september 16th, the date of "the washington post" story, i have experienced an outpouring of support from people in every state of this country. thousands and thousands of people who had their lives dramatically altered by sexual violence have reached out to share their experience and thanked me for coming forward. we have received tremendous support from our friends and our community. at the same time my greatest fears have been realized and the reality has been far worse than what i expected. my family and i have been the target of constant harrassment and death threats. i have been called the most vial and hateful names imaginable. these messages, while far fewer than the expressions of support have been terrifying and have rocked me to my core. people have posted my personal information and that of my

parents online on the internet. this resulted in additional emails, calls and threats. my family and i were forced to move out of our home. since sent 16th, my family and i have been visiting in various secure locales, at times separated, at types together with the help of security guards. this past tuesday evening my work email was hacked and messages were sent out trying to recant my description of the sexual assault. apart from the assault itself these past couple of weeks have been the hardest of my life. i have had to relive this trauma in front of the world. and i have seen my life picked apart by people on television. on twitter, other social media and in this body who never met with me or spoken with me. i have been accused acting out of partisan political motives.

those who say that do not know me. i am an independent person and i am no one's pawn. my motivation in coming forward was to be helpful and to provide facts about how mr. kavanaugh's actions have damaged my life, so that you could take into a serious consideration as you make your decision about how to proceed. it is not my responsibility to determine whether mr. kavanaugh deserves to sit on the supreme court. my responsibility is to tell you the truth. i understand that a professional prosecutor has been hired to ask me questions and i'm committed to doing my very best to answer them. i have never been questioned by a prosecutor and i will do my best. at the same time because the committee members will be judging my credibility i do hope to be able to engage directly with each of you and at this point i will do my best to

answer your questions. would request caffeine. >> a coke or something? >> that sounds good. that would be great. thank you. >> thank you very much. before i use my five minutes of questioning, i thought that would try to remind my colleagues and in this case, miss mitchell as well, that the five minutes, the way i traditionally have done, if you ask a question before your time runs out, even though you go over your time as long as you aren't filibustering i will let you ask your question and i'm going to make sure that both dr. ford and, dr. ford and judge kavanaugh as chairman of the committee, i know that they will get a chance to answer the

question hes fully, beyond that five minutes. but when that, when either dr. ford or judge kavanaugh gets done, then we immediately go to the next person. so i hope that, that that will be done in a and, dr. ford, i'm told that you want a break right now, if you do, that is fine. >> i'm okay. i got the coffee and i can proceed and drink my coffee. >> nobody can mix my could have korb coffee right, so you're pretty fortunate. that, miss mitchell you have five minutes to ask questions. >> good morning, dr. ford. we haven't met. my name is rachel mitchell. >> nice to meet you. >> the first thing that struck me from your statement this

morning that you're terrified. i wanted to let you know i'm very sorry. that is not right. i know this is stressful and so i would like to set forth some guidelines that maybe will a alleviate that a little bit. if i ask you a question you don't understand, please ask me to clarify it or ask it in a different way. when i ask questions, sometimes i will refer back to other information you have provided. if i do that, and i get it wrong, please correct me. >> okay. >> i'm not going to ask you to guess. i know it was a long time ago. if you do estimate, please let me know that you're estimating, okay? >> fair. >> we've put before you and i'm sure you have copies of them anyway, five pieces of information and i wanted to go over them. the first is a screen shot of a

what's app texting between you and somebody at "the washington post." do you have that in front of you? >> yes. >> the first two texts were sent by you on july 6th, is that correct? >> correct. no then the last one sent by you was on july 10th? >> correct. >> are those three comments accurate? >> i will read them. >> take your time. >> so there's one correction. >> okay. >> i have misused the word bystander as an adjective. >> okay. >> bystander means someone that is looking at an assault and then the person named p.j. was not technically a bystander. i was writing very quickly with a sense of urgency. so would not call him a bystander. he was downstairs. what i remember of him he was a tall and very nice person.

i didn't know him well but he was downstairs, not anywhere near the event. >> okay. >> thank you. >> i would hike to take that word out if it is possible. >> thank you for chair filing that. -- clarifying that. >> the second is the letter that you wrote to senator feinstein dated july 30th of this year. >> yes. >> did you write the letter yourself? >> i did. >> and i, since it is stated july 30th, did you write it on that date? >> i believe so. i was in rehope beth, delaware at the time. i could look into my calendar to figure that out. >> was it written on or about that date? >> yes, yes. i think i traveled the 26th of july to rehobeth, delaware, that makes sense because i wrote it from there. >> is the lerach rat? >> i will take a minute to read it. i can read fast. >> take your time.

>> okay.

so i have three areas that i would like to address. >> okay. >> in the second paragraph where it says, the assault occurred in a suburban maryland area home? >> yes. >> at a gathering that included me and four others. i can't guarranty that there weren't a few other people there but they are not, in my purview of my memory. >> would it be fair to say there were at least four others? >> yes. >> okay. what's the second correction? >> oh, okay. the next sentence begins, with kavanaugh physically pushed me into the bedroom. i would say i can't promise that mark judge didn't assist with that i don't know. i was pushed moo behind. so i don't want to put that fully on him. >> okay. >> miss mitchell, i don't know whether it is fair for me to interrupt, i want to keep people within five minutes. is that a major problem for you in the middle of a question?

because i don't, we've got, i've got to treat everybody the same. >> i understand that. >> can i go to senator feinstein or you -- >> yes, sir. i didn't see the light was red. please do. >> so we'll come back to that. >> i see. okay. [inaudible] >> for the benefit of dr. ford, i think she will continue that after the five minutes here. >> okay. >> mr. chairman, i would like to begin by putting some letters in the record. >> without objection, so ordered. >> thank you. >> do you want to tell me what? 1. >> 140 letters from friend and neighbors of the witness and 1000 female physicians across the country. those are what the letters are. i want to thank you very much

for your testimony. i know how very, very hard it is why, why have you held it to yourself all these years? as you look back, can you indicate what the reasons are? >> well, i haven't held it, all these years. i diddies close it in the confines of therapy where i felt like it was an appropriate place to cope with the sequelae of the event. >> can you tell us what impact the events had on you? >> well i think that the sequelae of sexual assault varies per person. anxiety, phobia, ptsd like symptoms are the types of things that i have been coping with. so more specifically

claustrophobia and panic and things. >> is that the reason for the second front door is claustrophobia. >> correct. our house does not look aesthetically pleasing from the curb. >> i see. do you have the second front door? >> now a place to host google interns because we live near google. we can just have, and other students can -- >> ah. can you tell us is there any other way this has affected your life? >> the primary impact was in the initial four years after the event. i struggled academically. i struggled very much in chapel hill, in college. when i was 17 and went off to college, i had a very hard time, more so than others, forming new friendships and especially friendships with boys. and i had academic problems.

>> what were the -- when, when we spoke and it became very clear how deeply you felt about this, and the need that you wanted to remain confidential, can you talk a little bit that? >> yes. so i was watching carefully throughout the summer -- well, my original intent, i want to remind was to communicate with everyone when there was still a list of candidates who all seemed to be the just from my perspective, from what i could read equally qualified and i was in a hurry to try to get the information forward but didn't quite know how to do that. however once he was selected and it seemed like he was popular and it was a sure vote, i was calculating daily the risk benefit for me of coming forward and wondering whether i would just be jumping in front of a

train that was headed to where it was headed anyway, and that i would just be personally annihilated. >> how did you decide to come forward? >> ultimately because reporters were sitting outside of my home trying to talk to my dog through the window, to calm the dog down and a reporter appeared in my graduate classroom and i mistook her for a student and she came up to ask me a question and i thought that she was a student and it turned out she was a reporter. so at that point i felt like enough was enough. people were calling my colleagues at stanford and leaving messages on their voice mails and on their emails saying they knew my name. clearly people knew my address because they were out in front of my house, and it just, the mounting pressure seemed like it was time to just say what i needed to say. >> i'm sorry.

i want to ask you one question about the attack itself. you were very clear about the attack being pushed into the room. you say you don't know quite by whom. but, that it was brett kavanaugh covered your mouth to prevent you from screaming. and then you escaped. how are you so sure it was he? >> the same way that i'm sure that i'm talking to you right now. just, basic memory functions. and also just the level of neurpherin and epinephrine that encodes memories into the hippocampus then the trauma related experience is locked there where as other details

kind of drift. >> what you're telling us this could not be a case of mistaken identity? >> absolutely not. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> miss mitchell, for senator hatch. >> thank you, mr. chairman. when we were stopped you were going to tell us a third correction that you wanted to make on that statement. i'm sorry the letter, to senator feinstein? >> it wasn't a correction, but i wanted to comment on it since we're looking at this letter. that i did see mark judge once at the potomac village safeway after the time of the attack t would be helpful with anyone's resources to figure out when he worked there, if people are wanting more details from me about when the attack occurred. if we could find out when he worked there, then i could provide a more detailed timeline as to when the attack occurred.

>> okay. and so that is not a correction in your statement? >> no. >> okay. you also wrote out a handwritten statement for the poll poligrapr when you took the polygraph test. i see corrections that where you crossed out. i will go on the washington post article originally published on september 16th of this year. >> can i not look at this for accuracy or leave that be. >> we can come back to it if you need to refer it. >> okay. >> on "the washington post" article, do you submit to an interview by a reporter with "the washington post" for that article to be written? >> correct. >> okay. and then finally, was the statement that you provided this morning, i assume that to the

best of your recollection, that that was accurate? >> that this whole article is accurate? >> no, the statement that you made this morning? >> yes. >> okay. i want to talk to you about the day this happened leading up to the gathering. >> okay. >> in your statement this morning, have you told us everything that you remember about the day leading up to that? >> yes. >> let me ask just a few questions to make sure that you thought of everything, okay? you indicated that you were at the country club swimming this day? >> that is my best estimate of how this could have happened. >> okay. and when you say best estimate, is that based on the fact that you said you went there pretty much every day? >> uh-huh. >> is that a yes? >> yes. >> do you recall prior to getting there, so i'm only talking about up to the

gathering. >> okay. >> ha you had anything to drink? >> not at all. >> were you on any sort of medication? >> none. >> okay. do you recall knowing before you went who was going to be at that gathering? >> i recall that expecting that mark judge and leland would be at that gathering. >> okay. do you recall an expectation that brett kavanaugh would be in? >> i don't recall whether or not i expected that. >> okay. now, let's talk about the gathering, up from the time you arrived till right when you went up the stairs, just that period of time. okay? what was the atmosphere like at the gathering? >> mr. kavanaugh and mr. judge were extremely inebirated. they had clearly been drinking prior and the other people at

the party were not. the living room -- >> can i ask you just to follow up on that. when you said it was clear they had been drinking prior, do you mean prior to the time you had gotten there or prior to the time they had arrived? >> prior to the time that they arrived. i don't recall who arrived first though, whether it was me or them. >> okay. please continue. >> okay. i recall that i can sketch a floor plan. i recall that it was a sparsely furnished, fairly modest living room. and it was not really a party, like the news has made it sound t was not. it was a gathering i assumed was going to lead to a party later on that those boys were attend because they tended to have parties later at night than i was allowed to stay out. so it was kind of a pregathering. >> was it loud? >> no, not not living room.

>> besides the music that you have described that was playing in the bedroom, was there any other music or television or anything like that was adding -- >> no. >> so there wasn't a stereo playing downstairs. >> no. >> senator leahy. >> dr. ford, thank you for being here. mr. chairman, you know the way to make this inquiry truly credible is to do what we've always done with new information about nominee comes to light, to use your word this morning, you want to reach the truth. the easy way to do that, ask the fbi to investigate. this is what we've always done. have them investigate, report back to us, the same applies to the serious allegations made by deborah ramirez and julie swetnick. let's have a non-partisan, professional investigation and

then take the time to have these witnesses testify. chairman, you and i were both here 27 years ago. at that time the senate failed anita hill. i said i believed her. but i'm concerned that we're doing a lot less for these three women today. that is my personal view. now, dr. ford, no matter what happens in this hearing today, no matter what happens to this nomination, i know, and i hear from so many of my own state of vermont, there are millions of victims and survivors out there who have been inspired by your courage. i am. bravery is contain just. indeed that is the driving force behind the "me too" movement. and you sharing your story is going to have a lasting, positive, impact on so many survivors in our country. we owe you a debt of gratitude

for that, doctor. now some senators suggested you were simply mixed up about who assaulted you. and now judge kavanaugh in the white house, promote ad wild theory about a kavanaugh hook alike. you immediately rejected that theory, as the innocent man called that look-a-like. he sent a letter to the committee forcefully rejecting this absurd theory. i ask question to epter that into the record. >> without objection. >> how did you know brett kavanaugh, mark judge? is it possible you would mix them up with somebody else? >> no, it is not and the person that was blamed for the incident is actually the person who introduced me to them originally. so he was a member of columbia country club and i don't want to talk about him because i think it is unfair that he is the

person that introduced me to them. >> but you would not mix up somebody else with brett kavanaugh, is that correct. >> correct. >> or mark judge? >> correct. >> let's go back to the stint. what is the strongest memory you have, strongest memory of the incident, something that you cannot forget. take whatever time you need. >> indelible in the in hippocampus, the laughter, uproarious laughter between the two and they're having fun at my expense. >> you have never forgotten that laughter? you have never forgotten them laughing at you? >> they were laughing with each other. >> and you were the object of the laughter?

>> i was, you know, underneath one of them while the two laughed, two friends having a really good time with one another. >> let me enter into the record a statement by the national task force on domestic violence. >> without objection so ordered. >> a letter from 24 members the house of representatives urging the committee to use the ntsf trauma informed approach in questioning dr. ford. >> without objection. >> a letter from another 116 members of the house asking to delay all all this has been heard. >> without objection, so ordered. >> and at dr. ford at times has been criticized what she doesn't remember from 36 years ago but we have numerous experts including a a stud by the u.s. army military police school

behavior, sciences and education, lapses of memory are wholly consistent with severe trauma and stress of assault. i ask consent that be entered. >> without objection, so ordered. >> dr. ford, i just conclude with this. you do remember what happened, do you not? >> very much so. >> thank you. >> now, miss mitchell for senator graham and it is my understanding that, that is where you would like to take a break? >> if work for you? does that work for you as well? >> we are here to accommodate you, not you accommodate us. >> i'm used to being collegial. >> so go ahead. miss mitchell for senator graham. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you told senator feinstein in your letter that you and four others were present. you have corrected that today to say it was at least four others.

when you were interviewed by the "washington post" you said there were four boys present at the party. and then in your polygraph statement you said there were four boys and two girls. when you say two girls, was that you and another or was that two other girls? >> that was me and one other girl. >> and that other girl's name? >> leland. >> leland kaiser now? >> correct. >> okay. so then would it be fair to say at least p.j., brett kavanaugh, mark judge, leland ingram at the time and yourself were present and possibly others? >> and one other boy. there was four boys. i just don't know the name of the other boy. >> have you been contacted by anybody saying hey, i was at that party too? >> no. i haven't talked with anyone from that party. >> okay.

now, you've been detailed about what happened once you got up the stairs and so i don't need to go through that again. i'm sorry, go ahead. >> i'm sorry. i just realized i said something that was inaccurate. said i hadn't spoken with anyone from the party -- i have spoken with leland. >> thank you for correcting that. i appreciate that. >> you have fon into detail about what happened, once you went up the stairs. i don't feel like it is necessary to go over those things again. >> okay. thank you. >> have you told us everything that you do remember about it? >> i believe so but if there are other questions i can attempt to answer them. >> okay. you said that the music was solely coming from that room, is that correct? >> correct. >> okay. and it was turned up once the three of you were inside of that room, is that correct? >> yes. >> okay.

at some point do you recall it being turned down? >> i don't remember if it was turned down once i was leaving the house. i don't remember. >> okay. >> likely, since i could hear them walking down the stairs very clearly from the bathroom. >> the bathroom door was closed when you heard this, is that correct? >> i could hear them very clearly hitting the walls going down the stairwell. >> in fact, in your letter you said that they went down the stairs and they are talking with other people. >> uh-huh. >> in the house. >> correct. >> were you able to hear that conversation? >> i was not able to hear that conversation but i was aware they were downstairs and i would have to walk past them to get out of the house. >> now, let me make sure we're on the same page. were you not able to hear the conversation or not able to understand the conversation? >> i couldn't hear the conversation. i was upstairs. >> how do you know there was a conversation? >> i just assuming since it was a social gathering people were

talking. i don't know. >> okay. in your letter -- >> talking as they went down the stairwell, they were laughing and. >> okay. in your letter you both loudly stumbled down the stairwell, at which point other persons at the house were talking with them, does that ring a bell? >> yes. i had to walk past everyone to leave the house so. >> okay. >> your letter -- >> maybe i'm not understanding. i'm sorry. >> your next sentence, let me try to clarify this. after you said other persons at the house were talking with them, the letter goes on with the very next sentence, i exited the bathroom, went outside of the house and went home? >> correct. >> okay. you said that you do not remember how you got home, is that correct? >> i do not remember other than i did not drive home. >> i will show you, if somebody could provide to you a map of

the various people's houses at a the time. if you could verify this is where you were living at the time. >> where i was living at the time? >> yes. >> okay. >> mr. chairman, do we have a copy of these documents? >> you do not have a copy -- if you want one we can get you one. >> before the questions begin so we can follow the testimony. >> okay. >> my staff said we should not provide the copy. >> no, we will provide the copy. >> we will provide the copies. >> speak plainly with me. >> i'm not sure what she is looking at. >> you have another 30 seconds now because i was rudely interrupted. >> mr. chairman, senator harris, we do have a blown up copy of this for the members to view, if that is helpful. >> okay.

i'm going to put checkmarks next to homes that i can confirm the correct locations and a x or question mark where i don't know where these people live. >> i'm only asking you to confirm if that map accurately where you lived at the time? >> where i lived at time. >> i can't see the street name but i'm happy to refer to the address or neighborhood? >> could you he will us that? >> yes it is river falls, near like the, what is the place called, the naval research center on clara barton parkway. >> was that and a house or an apartment? >> that was my parents home. >> all right. >> senator durbin. >> mr. chairman, i ask consent to enter no the record letters of support for dr. ford from her classmates at holton arms school, 1200 alumni of the school. 195 of your colleagues, students and mentors. 1400 women and men who attended

d.c. schools and 50 members of the yale law school faculty calling for a full fbi law school investigation. i ask consent to enter these into the record. >> without objection so ordered. >> dr. fords a difficult as this must be i want you to know your courage and coming forward given americans to face their life shattering past to heal their wounds. by example you have brought many families into an honest and sometimes painful dialogue that should have occurred a long time ago. i'm sorry for what this has done to you and your family. no one, no one should face harrassment, death threats and disparaging comments by cheap shot politicians simply for telling the truth. but you and your family should know for every scurrilous charge and every pathetic tweet there have been thousands of americans, women and men, who believe you, support you, and thank you for your courage. watching your experience, it is no wonder that many sexual

assault survivors hide their past and spend their lives suffering in pained silence. you had absolutely nothing to gain by bringing these facts to the senate judiciary committee. the fact that you are testifying here today terrified though you may be, the fact that you have called for an fbi investigation of this incident, the fact that you are prepared to name both judge kavanaugh and eyewitness mark judge stands in sharp contrast to the obstruction we've seen on the other side. the fbi should have investigated your charges as they did in the anita hill hearing but they did not. mark judge should be subpoenaed from his bethany beach hide away and required to testify under oath but he has not. judge kavanaugh, if he truly believes there is no evidence, no witnesses, that can prove their case, should be joining us in demanding a a thorough fbi investigation but he has not.

today coming before this committee and before this nation alone. i know you're joined by counsel and family. the prosecutor on the republican side will continue to ask questions to test your memory and veracity. after spending decade trying to forget that awful night it is no wonder your recollection is less than perfect. a polished liar can create a seamless story but a trauma survivor cannot be expected to refer every painful detail. that is what senator leahy mentioned earlier. one question is critical. in judge kavanaugh's opening testimony which we will hear after you leave, this is what he says. i never had any sexual or physical encounter of any kind with dr. ford. i am not questioning that dr. ford may have been sexually assaulted by some person in someplace at some time. last night the republican staff of this committee released to the media a timeline that shows

that they have interviewed two people who claimed they were the ones who actually assaulted you. i am ask you to address this new defense of mistaken identity directly. dr. ford, with what degree of certainty do you believe brett kavanaugh assaulted you? >> 100%. >> 100%. in the letter which you sent to doctor, or senator feinstein you wrote, i have not knowingly seen kavanaugh since the assault. i did see mark judge once at the potomac village safeway where he was extremely uncomfortable in seeing me. would you please describe that encounter at the safeway with mark judge and what led you to believe he was uncomfortable. >> yes. i was going to the potomac village safeway, one on the corner of falls and river road and i was with my mother and i was a teenager. so i wanted her to go in one door and me go in the other.

so i, i chose the wrong door because the door i chose was the one where mark judge was, looked like i was working there and, arranging the shopping carts. and i said hello to him. and his face was white. and very uncomfortable saying hello back. and we had previously been friendly at a the times that we saw each other over the previous two years albeit not very many times we had always been very friendly with one another. i wouldn't characterize him as not friendly. he was just nervous and not really wanting to speak with me. he looked a little bit ill. >> how long did this occur after the incident? >> i would estimate six to eight weeks. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> before we take a break, i can't let what durbin, senator

durbin said by the way he is my friend. we work on a lot of legislation together, but, you talked about the obstruction from the other side. i cannot let it go by what you have heard me say so many times, that between july 30th and september 13th, there were 45 days this committee could have been investigating this situation and her privacy would have been protected. so something happened here in between on your side that the whole country, not the whole country should have known about it, no, not know about it. we should have investigated it. we'll take a break now for 15 minutes. stuart: there there will be a 15 minute break. it started with them saying

they wanted doctor ford to be safe and comfortable and they wanted a show of civility all around. senator feinstein, the ranking member of the committee followed that up by saying, as she brought up, in detail, other unproven and uncorroborated accusations against judge cavanaugh. it then went to ms. mitchell who is the professional prosecutor employed by the republicans to ask questions of doctor ford and she began her testimony her questioning, and was interrupted after five minutes because her initial five minutes was up. they then went back, ms. feinstein was questioning about a case of mistaken identity and doctor ford said no, absolutely not. we now have a five, a 15 minute break. with me this morning, judge napolitano -- and liz. to you first, does doctor ford

come across as, with credibility. >> with great credibility. with serious intellect and with appropriate emotion. at this point she is one 100%. no one has laid a glove on her and she's absolutely believable in my opinion. >> she did have an opening statement, it was somewhat lengthy, she appeared to be close to tears and frail. >> i agree with that, i thought that was rational to see that, given what she was talking about. she went through in vivid and graphic detail what she says happened. she's absolutely certain the person who did this to her was bret cavanaugh, her memory of events before and after his fuzzy, but there doesn't seem to be any deficiency in the stated aspect of her memory about the event itself. >> dan, your opinion so far of the process and how it's coming across? >> i think the process is coming across extraordinarily

fractured. it's just unprecedented. prosecutor questioning to be interrupted every five minutes for political testimony by democratic senators, then we returned to the line of questioning which is going to be very difficult to follow. i have to say, i think at the end of the day, which could be six hours from now, we are going to end up in the same place where we started. where we started was she said, he said. judge cavanaugh will testify this afternoon and i think at the end he will, people will have to decide whether she's credible or he is credible. we are not going to learn anything substantial. >> i think the way it's being handled is awkward at the very least. they describe it as a hearing, a hybrid of parliamentary and legal proceeding.

>> the prosecutor is a plus. she is gaining the confidence of the witness. this is not a cross-examination, this is a let me help you get your story out but to do it in five minute segments is the chairman's decision and this is the way this committee operates is really weird and bizarre and disruptive. >> senator chuck grassley continues to hammer home the point that we would not be here if this was not handled correctly. it was handled incorrectly. her privacy has been violated. there's been a breach of trust. her story got leaked. republicans are trying to do a confidential investigation for weeks starting in july they wanted it to be bipartisan. chuck grassley said they did not step up to have it be bipartisan in its breaking senate rules to have leaked this confidential information to the press and that's how we got here today. >> and senator grassley has come down hard on senator feinstein because of that.

>> the process that ms. ford described was that she sent the letter to her congresswoman but she didn't want it made public, and then she said, out of a sense of duty she reached out confidentially to the washington post. how do you reach out confidentially to the washington post? at that point, the reporters obviously leaked the story and then reporters show up in her classroom and in her house. it was a very strange process and for her to think she was going to be able to suppress information she is handing to members of congress and the press, it doesn't compute. >> or member what ben franklin once said. three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead. you really can't trust anybody with us. i agree with the criticism, but i don't think it impairs her credibility with respect to the specific allegations against judge kavanaugh.

>> with interesting is senator feinstein who was pushed hard on that by chuck grassley did not address it at all. did not address it. just talked about how difficult it is for women who are victims or alleged victims of sexual assault, how hard it is for them to come forward. she never ever directly asked him why did you sit on this for so long, why did you choose the moment you did to suddenly release this in the process of a nomination for bret cavanaugh. >> judge, maybe you can answer this. why is it that someone, when someone is perhaps in the process of ruining the career and reputation of a man nominated to the supreme court, why is it that someone who is, in many ways undermining the integrity of the court and the nominee, why can't that person be questions question vigorously. why do we have to step back, and with absolute maximum caution have her interviewed by another woman?

>> i think it's because of the times in which we live. we were talking earlier about cross-examination and it was a true cross-examination, it was a destructive cross-examination of anita hill. he used, as his roadmap for that cross-examination the interview she gave to the fbi. she told the fbi a different version of events about clarence thomas and she told the senate publicly. i think he could get away with a skilled cross examiner, a white male cross examiner cross-examining a black female victim could get away with that and be lauded for it in 1991. i don't think that the republicans believe that could happen today. and that even a successful crossbow examination by anyone of the 11 white male republicans on doctor ford would cause blowback to the political career of whoever did it. so.

>> so politics prevents the sharp edge questioning of doctor ford. >> yes, i thought we would get sharper questioning from ms. mitchell. maybe we will. she still in the earliest stages and you've got a stop after every five minutes. it's so unorthodox, so bizarre , so disruptive, i don't know how she could get on a roll at all. >> agreed. >> and then the question is, why didn't the fbi interview doctor ford if the fbi did come as you pointed out interviewed anita hill. would that have helped the process having the fbi sit down with doctor ford to take her statement? >> president george h.w. bush personally, when the anita hill allegations were made stopped the clock, sent the fbi out. they didn't just interviewed judge thomas and professor hill, they interviewed 22 people. they gave a binder and an inch thick and the hearings resumed. what we are seeing today went on for three days in the anita hill clea clarence thomas. >> we know how the fbi interviewed. they would've talked to everybody in her high school,

everyone in that neighborhood. everyone she is trying to protect or say i didn't wanted drag them into it, they would be involved. >> because it's emotional now. >> it should've been done 45 days ago. >> this should be about the fact. it should be about the facts done in a bipartisan confidential way to get at the fact. >> and this was covered up deliberately so the democrats could introduce this at the very last minute and delay and therefore derail the investigation. senator feinstein stands accused here of dishonorable conduct. >> and didn't address it in the opening statement where senator grassley was saying this was mishandled from the get get go. >> the house of judge kavanaugh, we expect to see him emerge from his house and then make his way to the hearing room on capitol hill. >> let me say a word about

senator feinstein. she is in a very difficult and bizarre reelection campaign where she is running against another democrat in california. one has to believe that is foremost on her mind. when you say politics is at the root of it, you are being charitable. that's an understatement. politics is at the root, politics is the goal, politics is the cause, it's the memes of all of this. >> i have to say i thought she reached a new low in her opening statement when this is doctor ford's day to present her case, she goes into the details of the accusation by ms. ramirez against judge kavanaugh. two i think the proceedings thus far this morning have been orderly, restrained, respectful and accommodating of doctor ford, and that however, in my opinion will change radically this afternoon when judge kavanaugh

is on the sand. >> he has his work cut out for him because after two hours of this we have a victim who is exceptionally credible. >> if this is he said she said at the end of the day, judgment will be made on the credibility of cavanaugh and ford. is that accurate. >> agreed. i don't think this is a search for the truth. it's just a search for whose more believable. it's that bad. >> so it's entirely, one 100% political. >> absolutely. >> i don't even think the other side would disagree with that. >> has that not always been true of supreme court hearings? >> we've only had one other like this. it was his attitude about the court. in clarence thomas it was personal behavior. >> that goes back a generation. >> yes. >> the thing is, both sides are talking past each other. women have been endured horrible abuse at the hands of men from times of memorial.

those are facts. clearly she suffered a trauma. we have to get at the facts. what happened because future nominees position is at stake. what mitchell's questioning was really interesting was asking doctor ford to go through her text and the washington post to can you check it, is it still accurate, she then said a gentleman named pj, she would not call him a bystander as she initially called him in that text, he was downstairs and did not witness the assault. so we been watching what doctor ford has been saying and amending what she initially says. >> so she has amended. >> she has amended what she initially said. in her letter, for example that was sent to senator feinstein, she initially said she wanted to address whether or not bret cavanaugh was the one who pushed her on the bed and she said it was possible that mark judge instead pushed her and then reconsidering that letter. >> my question is bret cavanaugh's watching this, obviously from his home, how

does he approach this? does he have to be aggressive, show some passion, absolutely deny all allegations, show outrage, or does he have to stay cool, calm and collected. >> i don't know who's advising him but if he comes across like a deer in headlights he's going to lose this. if he comes across with the righteous indignation of clarence thomas, condemning the intrusive nature of the proceeding, insisting upon his personal probity, he's got a shot. it's an uphill battle because this woman is very credible so far be met but you do believe he should do what clarence thomas did. >> i believe if he fails to do it he's not going to be on the supreme court. >> was clarence thomas asked, did you see the proceedings involving anita hill, did you watch and he responded and said no, i didn't launch. >> completely blew the whole committee and the whole country away. wait a minute. you didn't watch this, we just

all spent the day watching it. what do i care what she said. the whole thing is from out of her imagination. they appear to be coming back into the hearing room. they've not yet been gaveled back to order. we've had about 14 minutes of break time. we are expecting 15 minutes so pretty soon we are going to get back to action, so to speak and were still looking at the right hand side of your screen, that's judge kavanaugh's home, we expect him to emerge at some point and then make his way to the hearing room. he will be in that hearing room this afternoon and again, i have to say, the atmosphere in that committee room will change radically the moment i do believe it's restrained, respectful and accommodating. i imagine that the democrats will vigorously attack judge kavanaugh and they will bring up other allegations, other

unproven, uncorroborated allegations with the judge himself. >> that's what's going to happen. >> is how he reacts to that that will be critical. >> before we get back to the hearing which is about to be restarted, i should tell you, the dow industrial appear to be paying no attention whatsoever to what's going on. trading volume is down 14% because everybody is watching this. the whole country is watching desperate i don't have every other tv station on the planet on my monitors so i cannot see whether the weather channel is following this or espn, i can't actually see one espn channel and they are not going for the cavanaugh hearings. we will be getting back to that in just a second. again, dow industrials now up triple digits, 125-point hi, close to the high of the day. we are at 26500, i believe

that's because we've got solid economic growth confirmed for the second quarter, sharp increase in durable goods, factory orders, that kind of thing. good gdp number, positive news on trade. we are talking a bilateral deal with the japanese. there you have it. and there we have the hearing which are about to get underway. as i recall, we were just ended doctor mitchell's questioning sessions so i believe that when we get back there will be looking at questions from another democrat. on the right-hand side of the left-hand screen is jeff flake. we will get back to rachel mitchell, but that is jeff flake, there he says, he's on the judiciary committee, if this, if cavanaugh is going to

get voted yes and get voted out of the committee, flake has to vote yes. am i right? >> absolutely. there's no guarantee. the other talk is that the one to watch is also senator susan collins in the overall vote because where she goes could give cover to other republicans to follow. in other words susan collins is considered a moderate. she voted against betsy devos and against scott pruitt and we don't know how susan collins is going to come down on the cavanaugh nomination it's the usual crowd and jeff flake. >> i keep trying to say let us understand what's going on. if judge kavanaugh is defeated it will be a holy political judgment because there is going to be no corroboration for doctor ford's testimony today. it remains she said he said and he's nominated for a seat on the united states supreme court. if you can defeat someone on

that basis and what were looking at is basically a system of frontier justice, rough justice. >> the presumption of innocence has been lost. >> end of the set the standard for future proceeding. >> it certainly sets the standard. it's about to be established if he goes out. >> that's a very serious thing. the stakes are so high for the future of our politics. >> our politics, how about a professor up for tenure or how a ceo of a company, anyone in high position if an individual comes forward and makes a surgeon, why should no that not be justificatio justification. >> and the real problem is that democrats are treating an accusation as being tantamount to a conviction. they have to weigh the facts in the balance and be unemotional if they care about their advise and consent stature within the senate to advise the consent and give the presidents guidance as to who the nominee will be.

>> what we do have the verdict goes against judge kavanaugh and there's no evidence. >> it should not be an article of faith that you always believe the accusers. i don't doubt she went through something dramatic but it needs to be corroborating facts. >> there are none. >> and here we are, were about to see, were still waiting for doctor ford come back into the hearing room. we've had an 18 minute break thus far. it was was to be 15 minutes but chairman grassley has given great flexibility to doctor ford, when she wants to take rate, how long she wants take that break,. >> the prosecutor's questioning was interrupted doctor ford spent the entire 18 minutes talking to that lawyer sitting next to her who

is obviously giving her direction because he senses where the question is going. it is really a bizarre process. >> i think i just heard a gavel and there is doctor ford returning to the hearing room. let's listen in as these proceedings continue >> doctor ford, we were gonna schedule a break for 1205 but this break came a little bit later because i didn't call it at the right time. we will have a vote at 1240. would it be possible for you to go until now until 1240 without a break? >> yes. >> okay, now it is senator cornyn's time so proceed miss mitchell. >> thank you, senator. i have a blow appear to my right of the map that was shown to yo you. the address that's indicated on here as belonging to your family is what all the property tax records show as

being your address. just to put it in perspective, i would like to show you further out, a zoomed out picture so we can put it in perspective and show the greater washington area, you can see the beltway on that, and number three, if we could look at that. we drew a 1 mile radius around the country club and then we calculated from the furthest -- >> mr. chairman, again, we don't have these documents. no, we are not. that's why she showed three different documents because they depict three different things. we would like to see all three documents, please, so we can follow along. >> proceed, please. >> looking at the third thing here, we calculated the distance from the closest point to your house from a mile radius of the country

club and the furthest point. you can see it six-point to and eight-point to miles. you've described this as being near the country club, wherever this house is. is that right? >> i would describe it as somewhere between my house in the country club in the vicinity that shown in your picture and the country club is about a 20 minute drive from my parents home. >> a 20 minute drive? of course i've marked as the crow flies. would it be fair to say someone drove you somewhere either to the party or home from the part party? >> correct. >> has anyone come forward to say to you, remember i was the one that drove you home? >> no. >> okay. in your july 6 text to the washington post that you looked at earlier, you said this happened in the mid 80s and in your letter to senator feinstein you set it occurred

in the early '80s. in your polygraph statement you said it was high school summer in the 80s and you had actually written in, and this is one of the corrections, early and then you cross that out. later in your interview with the washington post, you are more specific. you believed it occurred in the summer of 1982 and you said the end of your sophomore year. >> yes. >> you said the same thing in your prepared statement. how are you able to narrow down the timeline. >> i can't give the exact date and i would like to be more helpful about the date and i wish i knew when mark judge worked at the potomac safeway and then i would be able to be more helpful in that way. i'm just using memories of when i got my drivers license, i was 15 at the time. i did not drive home from that party or to that party. once i had my drivers license,

i liked to drive myself. >> i assume the legal driving age was 16. >> yes. >> you talked about attending therapy. in your text to the washington post dated seven -- six, the very first statement we have from you, you wrote have therapy records talking about it. i want to make sure i understand that. did you already have your therapy records at that time? >> i had looked at them online to see if they existed, yes. >> okay, so this was something that was available to you via a computer like outpatient portal. >> actually, no, it was in the office of a provider. she help me go through the record to help me locate whether i had record of this conversation that i had remembered. >> did you show a full or partial set of those marriage

therapy records to the washington post? >> i don't remember. i remember summarizing for her what they said some not quite sure if i actually gave her the record. >> so it's possible that the reporter did not see these notes. >> i don't know, i can't recall whether she saw them directly or if i just told her what they said. >> have you shown them to anyone else besides your counsel? >> just the council. >> would be fair to say bret cavanaugh's name is not listed in those notes. >> his name is not listed in those not. >> what it also be fair to say that the therapist notes that we've been talking about say there were four boys in the room. >> it describes the sexual assault and says erroneously

by four boys so the therapist at the content of it wrong. >> and you corrected that washington post reporter matt correct. >> senator whitehouse. >> thank you chairman. thank you doctor ford. a lot of people are proud of you today. from a prosecutor's view, one of the hardest things that we have to do is to speak to someone who has come forward with an allegation of sexual assault and let them know we can't provide the evidence to go forward to trial. it's a hard day for the prosecutor to do that. and so, both because making a sincere and thorough investigative effort is such an important compilation to the victim in that circumstance, and because it is what you are obliged to do professionally.

sincere and thorough investigation is critical to these claims in a prosecutor's world. it may be the most basic thing that we owe a victim or witness coming forward to make sure we give them a full, thorough and sincere investigation. you have met all of the standards of what i might call preliminary credibility with your initial statement. you have vivid, specific and detailed recollection, something prosecutors look for, your recollections are consistent with known facts, you made prior consistent bateman, something else prosecutors look for, you are willing to and did take a lie detector test, and you are willing to testify here, subject to professional cross-examination by a

prosecutor. so, you have met any condition , any prosecutor could expect to go forward, and yet there has been no sincere or thorough investigation of your claims. you specifically asked for an fbi investigation, did you not? - yes. >> and, are you aware when the fbi begins investigating they might find corroborative evidence and exculpatory evidence - i don't know what exculpatory evidence is not helpful to your recollection and version of events, helpful to the accused. >> understood, yes. >> so it could go either way. >> yes two and you were still not just willing, but insistent that the fbi should investigate your recollection

and your claim. >> yes, i feel like it could be more helpful if that was the case in providing somebody detailed that people are wanting to know about. >> and as we know, they didn't, and i submit that never, never in the history of background investigations has an investigation not been pursued when new, credible, derogatory information was brought forward about the nominee or the candidate. i don't think this has never happened in the history of fbi background investigations. maybe somebody can prove me wrong, but it's wildly unusual and out of character, and, in my view, it is a grave disservice to you, and i want to take this moment to apologize to you for that and to report to anybody who might

be listening that when someone is willing to come forward, even under those circumstances, even heaven not been given the courtesy and support of up proper investigation, you shown yourself particularly proud in doing that. the response believed for the decision to have this be the only background investigation and history to be stopped as derogatory information came forward belongs with 13 men. the president, director ray of the fbi, and the 11 members of the majority of this committee. as to the committee's investigation, the fact that they have not been subpoenaed tells you all you need to know.

since this issue come up so many times i would like to comment. "the new yorker" published anonymous account of allegations september the 14th. two days later, dr. ford identified herself as the victim. in post-article. detailing her allegations. i immediately directed my staff to investigate. september the 17th dr. ford's counsel went on several television shows requesting that her client have the opportunity to tell her story. the same day i scheduled a hearing for monday, september

the 24th, giving dr. ford a week to prepare her testimony to come to washington, d.c. on september 17th committee investigative staff reached out to dr. ford and judge kavanaugh to schedule follow-up interviews with republican and democrat investigators. judge kavanaugh accepted. the opportunity to speak to the investigators under criminal penalty. dr. ford declined. in his interview on september the 17th, judge kavanaugh denied the allegations and requested a hearing as soon as possible. democratic staff refused to participate in that interview. the next day september the 18th committee investigative staff contacted mark judge, requesting an interview. committee staff also learned identity of two other alleged partygoers and requested interviews. mark judge submitted a statement under penalty of felony denying knowledge of the party described by dr. ford and states that he never saw in the manner

described by dr. ford. i could go on and on about that. but we got to realize what we have done in this case, all of the time you go through a background investigation by the fbi. then it comes to us. and there is always some holes in it that we have follow-up on. and besides, we're responding to a dr. ford's request to tell her story. that is why we're here. >> mr. chairman? mr. chairman. >> miss mitchell go forward. >> mr. chairman, i just want to point out to support what senator whitehouse -- >> can we hear from dr. ford. >> george bush ordered the investigation be opened again. >> miss mitchell will you proceed for senator lee? >> thank you, mr. chairman. dr. ford, "the washington post" reported in their