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 september 16th article that

you did show them therapist notes. is that incorrect? >> i don't remember physically showing her a note. >> okay. >> perhaps my counsel did. i don't remember physically showing her my copy the ♪ >> i just don't remember. i'm sorry. i have retrieved a physical copy those medical records. >> okay. thank you. you also attended individual therapy. did you show any of those notes to the reporter from "the washington post"? >> i don't remember if i showed her something that i summarized or if i just spoke about it. or if she saw it in my counsel's office. i can't, i don't know for sure but i certainly spoke with her about the 2013 record with the individual therapist. >> brett kavanaugh's name is not

in those notes, correct? >> correct. >> in reading "the washington post" article it mentions that this incident that we're hear about contributed to anxiety and ptsd problems with which you have struggled. the word contributed, does that mean that there are other things that have happened that have also contributed to anxiety and ptsd? >> i think that is a great question. i think think i that is certainly a critical risk, we would call all it a risk factor in science. that would be predictor of symptoms that i now have. doesn't mean that other things happened in my life would make it worse or better. there are other risk factors as well. >> so have there been other things that contributed to the anxiety and ptsd that you suffered?

>> well i think there is sort of biological predispositions everyone in here has for particular disorders so i can't rule out i would have some biological predisposition to be anxious type person. >> what about environmental? >> environmentally, not that i can think of. >> okay. >> certainly nothing as striking as that event. >> okay. in your interview with "the washington post" you said that you told your husband early in your marriage that you had been a victim of, and i quote, physical abuse. in your statement, you said that before you were married you told him you had experienced, quote, a sexual assault. do these two things refer to the same incident? >> yes. >> at either point on these two times did you use any names? >> no. >> okay.

may i ask, dr. ford, how did you get to washington? >> in an airplane. >> okay. i asked that because it has been reported by the press that you would not submit to an interview with the committee because of your fear of flying. is that true? >> well i was willing, i was hoping they would come to me. but then i realized that was an an unrealistic request. >> it would be a quicker trip for me. >> so yes, that was certainly what i was hoping was to avoid having to get on an airplane. but i eventually was able to get up the gumption with the help of some friend and get on the plane. >> when you were here in the mid-atlantic area back in august of, end of july, august, how did you get here? >> also by airplane. i come here once a year during the summer to visit my family. >> okay. >> i'm sorry not here. i go to delaware.

>> okay. in fact you fly fairly frequently for your hobbies and your, you have had to fly for your work, is that true? >> correct, unfortunately. >> you were a consulting bio statistician in sydney, australia, is that right? >> i have never been to australia, but the company that i worked for is based in australia, and they have an office in san francisco, california. i don't think i will make to as you tail yaw. >> it is long. i saw on the cv you list following interests of surf travel, you in parentheses. neil: hawaii, coast tariq can, south pacific islands and french polynesia. have you been to all of those places? >> expect. >> by airplane. >> your interests include oceanography, who way wan and tahitian culture. did you travel by airport of those interests. >> correct. easier for me to travel going that direction when it's a

vacation. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here, dr. ford. you know in my old job as a prosecutor we investigated reports like this. so it gave me a window on the types of cases that hurt women and hurt all of us. and i would always tell the women that came before us, that they were going to have to tell their story before a jury box of strangers and you have had to tell your story before the entire nation. for some years people swept cases like yours under the rug. they would say, what happens inside of a house didn't belong in the courthouse. well, the times have chained. so i just want to thank you for coming forward today and for sharing your report with us. now i understand that you have taken a polygraph test. dr. ford, that found that you were being truthful when you described what happened to you. can you tell us why you decided

to take that test? >> i was meeting with attorneys. i was interviewing various attorneys and the attorneys asked if i was willing to take it and i said absolutely. that said it was almost as anxiety provoking as an airplane flight. >> okay. and you have talked about your recollections and seeing mark judge at that safeway. if there had been an appropriate reopening of this background check and fbi interviews would that helped you find the time period if you knew when he worked at that safeway? >> i feel i could be much more helpful if i could be provided through that date through employment records or the irs or something, anything that would help. >> thank you. i would assume that is true. dr. ford, under federal law, i don't expect you to know this, statements made to medical professionals are considered to be more reliable. there is a federal rule of evidence about this.

you told your counselor about this back in 2012, is that right? >> my therapist? my individual therapist, correct? >> right. and i understand that your husband was also present when you spoke about this stint in front of a counselor and he recalls you using judge kavanaugh's name, is that right? >> yes. i just have to slow down a minute because i may have been confusing. so there were two separate incidents where it is reflected in my medical record. i had talked about it more than those two times. but therapists don't typically write down contents as much as they write down process. they are usually tracking your symptoms and not your story and the facts. i just happen to have it in my record twice. so the first time is in 2012 with my husband and in couples therapy with quibbling over the remodel. and then in 2013, with my individual therapist.

>> so if someone had actually done an investigation your husband would have been able to say that you named his name at that time? >> correct. >> okay. i know you have been concerned with your privacy throughout the process and you first requested that your account be kept confidential. can you briefly tell us why? >> yes. so as i stated before, once i was unsuccessful in getting my information to you before the candidate was chosen, my original intent was to get the information when there was still a list of other candidates available. and once that was not successful and i saw that persons were very supportive of the nominee i tracked it all summer. >> okay. >> and realized that, when i was calculating that risk benefit ratio that it looked like i was going to just, you know, suffer

only for no reason. >> okay. you know from my experience with memory i remember distinctly things that happened to me in high school or happened to me in college but i don't exactly remember the date. i don't exactly remember the time. i sometimes, i mean i remember the exact place where it occurred but i remember the interaction and many people are focused today on what you're not able to remember about that night. i actually think you remember a lot. i'm going to phrase it a little differently. can you tell us what you don't forget about that night? >> the stairwell. the living room. the bedroom. the bed on the right side of the room as you walk into the room, there was a bed to the right. the bathroom in close proximity. the laughter, the uproarious

laughter and multiple attempts to escape and the final ability to do so. >> thank you very much, dr. ford >> dr. ford, i want to correct the record but it is not something that i'm saying that you stated wrongly because you may not know the fact that when you said that you didn't think it was possible for us to go to california as a committee or investigators to go to california to talk to you, we did in fact offer that to you and we had the capability of doing it and we would have done it anywhere or anytime. so -- >> thank you. >> and mr. chairman, could i put the polygraph results on the record please? the polygraph results in the record. is there any objection? >> let us see the chart. >> the polygraph? you want to see it? i think you may have it.

>> hold just a minute. can we have the underlying charts too? >> the underlying charts? i have the polygraph results would i like to put in the record. i will deal with the charts after that. can i put the polygraph test in the record. >> mr. chairman, we were, we had proposed having the polygraph examiner testify as you know. if that had happened, the full panoply of materials that he had supporting his examination would have been provided. you rejected that request. so what we did provide was the polygraph report which is what the members of the committee currently have. >> and on sent 26th, mr. chairman, this was actually sent to your chief counsel. i want to share it with america so that they have this report as well. >> okay. we will accept without objection what you have asked us to include but we're also requesting and expect the other deals that i have just stated.

>> but mr. chairman you wouldn't allow underlying witness who performed the underlying polygraph test and to testify and not allow mark judge to testify. i want to point out thank you for allowing the report in the record. but that is the reason we don't have the underlying information for you. >> you got what you wanted. i would think you are satisfied. >> i am satisfied with that. >> senator. go ahead. >> when was the polygraph administered? >> it was administered on august 7th, 2018. the date of the report is august 10th, 2018? >> when it was provided to committee. >> let's see if we do it more orderly way. >> he was asking. i have it right here. you have it's well. >> we accepted it. >> all right. >> [inaudible]. >> miss mitchell, for senator cruz. >> thank you.

dr. ford, we've talked about the day and the night that you have described in the summer of 1982 and thank you for being willing to do that. i know it's difficult. i would like to shift gears and discuss the last several months. >> okay. >> in your statement you said that on july 6th you had a quote, sense of urgency to relay the information to the senate and the president. did you contact either the senate or the president on or before july 6th? >> no, i did not. i did not know how to do that. >> okay. prior to july 6th, had you spoken to any member of congress, when i say congress, i mean the senate or the house of representatives or any congressional staff members about your allegations? >> no. >> why did you contact

"the washington post" then on july 6th? >> so i was panicking because i knew that the timeline was short for the decision. and people were giving me advice on the beach. people who don't know about the processes that they were giving me advice and many people told me, you need to hire a lawyer. and i didn't do that. i didn't understand why i would need a lawyer. somebody said, call "the new york times." call "the washington post." put it in anonymous tip. go to your congress person. and when i weighed those options i felt like the best option was to try to do the civic route which is to go to my congressperson who happens to be anna eshoo and i called her office and put anonymous tip into the "washington post."

unfortunately neither got back to me before the selection of the nominee. >> you testified that congresswoman eshoo's office contacted you on july 9th, that right? >> they contacted me the date the nominee announced so, that seep seems likely. >> had you talked to about your allegation to anyone in your office before july 9th? >> i told the reessentialist own the phone. >> okay. on july 10th, you texted "the washington post" again, which was really the third time, is that right? second date, third time? >> let's see. >> one moment. >> correct,. >> and you texted been advised to contact senators or "new york times." haven't heard back from "washington post." who advised you to contact senators or "the new york times"

>> beach friends, coming up with ideas how i could try to get to people because people weren't responding to me very quickly. so quickly they responded to that text for unknown reason, once i sent that encrypted text they responded very quickly. >> did you contact "the new york times"? >> no. >> why not? >> i wasn't interested in pursuing the media route particularly. so i felt like one was enough, "the washington post." and i was nervous about doing that. my preference was to talk with my congress person. >> okay. "the washington post" texted back, that someone would get in touch, get you in touch with a reporter. did you subsequently talk with a reporter from "the washington post"? >> yes. under the encrypted app. and off the record. >> okay. who was that reporter.

>> emma brown. >> the person who ultimately wrote the story on september september 16th? >> correct. >> did you talk to any member of congress, and again, remember congress include the senate or the house of representatives or any congressional staff members about your allegations between july 10th and the july 30th, which was the date of your letter to senator feinstein? >> yes, i met with congresswoman eshoo's staff and i think that is july 18th. and then on the wednesday and then on the friday i met with the congresswoman herself. >> when you met with her, did you meet with her alone or did someone come with you? >> i was alone. she had a staff person. >> okay. what did you talk about with congresswoman eshoo and her staff on july 18th and the 20th? >> i described the night of the

incident. and we spent time speaking about that. and i asked her how to, what my options were in terms of going forward and how to get that information relayed forward. and also talked to her about fears of whether this was confidential information and she discussed the constituent confidentiality principle. >> thank you. >> thank you, chairman grassily. i would ask unanimous consent to submit for the record five articles, including one entitled, why sexual assault memories stick, and entitled, why didn't kavanaugh accuser come forward earlier? police often ignore allegations. >> so ordered. >> i want to thank you, dr. ford, coming to testify before us today. you came for word very serious and relative information for a nominee on the lifetime position

on the supreme court. i didn't have to and i know you have done it at great personal cost. this is public service. i'm grateful to have the opportunity to hear from you directly today. i would like to first follow up on that line of questioning miss mitchell was following. i think a a lot of people don't realize that you chose to come forward with your concerns about judge kavanaugh before he was nominated to the supreme court. do i understand correctly when you first reached out to congresswoman eshoo and to "the washington post" tipline that is when he was on the short list but before he was nominated to the supreme court, is that correct? >> correct. >> and if i understood your testimony earlier that you were motivated by a sense of civic duty and frankly a hope some other high-ly qualified nominee might be picked out, not out of motivation as a late-stage to have impact on final decision? >> correct. i felt it was very important to get the information to you, but i didn't know how to do it. while there was still a short

list of candidates. >> thank you, doctor. according to the justice department data 2/3 of sexual assault survivors don't report their assaults. based on your experience i would be interested in hearing from you about this because you bore this alone. you bore this alone for a very long time. it would be hopeful for to us understand the ways that impacted your whole life. >> well it is impacted me at different stages of the development of my life, so the immediate impact was probably the worst. so the first four years i think i described earlier, a fairly disasterous first two years of ungraduate studies at university of north carolina where i was finally able to pull myself together and. and then, once coping with, with the immediate impacts, the short-term impacts, i

experienced like longer term impacts of anxiety and relationship challenges. >> thank thank you for sharing . then you went on to get a phd from usc, that correct? >> correct. >> as you predicted there was a wide range of responses to your coming forward. some thousands of survivors have been motivated and inspire by your courage. others have been critical and as i have reviewed the wide range of reactions, i have been really troubled by the excuse offered by too many that this was a high school incident and boys will be boys. to me that is just far too low a standard of conduct of boys and men in our country. if you would, i would appreciate your reaction to the excuse that boys will be boys. >> i can only speak for how it has impacted me greatly for the last 36 years even though i was 15 years old at the time. and i think, you know the

younger you are when these things happen, it could possibly have worse impact than when you are a full, when your brain is fully developed and you have better coping skills that you have developed. >> you know experts have written about how it is common for sexual assault survivors remember some facts about the experience, very sharply and very clearly but not others. that has to do with the survival mode we to into in experiencing trauma. is that your experience, is that something you can help the layperson understand? >> yes. it was definitely experiencing the fight or flight mode, is that what you're referring to? yes, i was definitely experiencing the surge of adrenaline and cortisol and epinephrine and credit that a little bit for my ability to get out of the situation but also some other lucky events that occurred that allowed me to get out of the event. >> dr. ford, we are grateful

that you came through it and that you shared your account with us and the american people and i think you have provided important information. i would like to thank you for meeting your civic duty. i wish we could have provided for you a more thorough hearing today. i think asking for the fbi to investigate this matter thoroughly was not asking too much. i think asking to have the other individual involved in your assault, mark judge, appear before us today was not asking too much. i'm grateful you came forward and i'm thankful for your courage which set an important example. thank you, dr. ford. >> miss mitchell for senator sasse. >> dr. ford, we were talking about you meeting in july with congresswoman eshoo. >> yes. >> did you talk about your allegations with any republican member of congress or congressional staff? >> i did not. where i lived the congressman is a democrat. >> okay. was it communicated to you by

your counsel or someone else that the committee had asked to interview you, and they offered to come out to california to do so? >> we're going to be object, mr. chairman to any call for privileged conversations between counsel and dr. ford. >> could you validate the fact the offer was made without saying a word? are we going to take turns? >> is it possible to answer the question without violating any counsel relationships? >> can i say something to you? do you mind if i say something to you directly? >> yeah. >> i just appreciate that you did offer that. i wasn't clear on what the offer was. if you were going to come out to see me i would have happily hosted you and been happy to speak with you out there. i just did not, it client clear to me that was the case. >> okay.

does that take care of your question? >> yes, thank you, mr. chair. >> proceed then. >> before july 30th, the date on your letter to senator feinstein, had you retained counsel with to these allegations? >> no. i didn't think, i didn't understand why i would need lawyers actually. i just didn't know. >> a lot of people have that feeling. let's talk about the letter that you wrote on july 30th. you asked senator feinstein to maintain confidentiality, quote, until -- >> wait until see retrieves it. >> trying to look for it. >> i think it is there. >> stop the clock, will you? >> is it there someplace? >> oh, i found it. sorry. >> okay. you asked senator feinstein to maintain confidentiality until

we have had further opportunity to speak. and then said you were available to speak further, vacationing in the mid-atlantic until august 7th, is that correct? >> the last line, is that -- i'm now catching up with you, sorry, i'm a little slower. my mind is getting a little tired. i'm available to speak further should you wish to discuss, yes, i was in delaware until august 7th. >> okay. >> and after that i went to new hampshire and then back to california. >> did you talk with anybody about this letter before you sent it? >> i talked with anna eshoo's office. >> okay. why did you talk to congresswoman eshoo's office about that letter? >> they were willing to hand deliver it to senator feinstein. >> did anyone help you write the letter? >> no. >> okay. after you sent your letter, did

you or anyone on your behalf speak to senator feinstein personally or with any senate staffer? >> yes. i had a phone call with senator feinstein. >> okay. when was that? >> that was while i was still in delaware. so before august 7th. >> and how times did you speak with senator feinstein? >> once. >> okay. >> what did you talk about? >> she asked me some questions about the incident. >> okay. >> and, i answered those questions. >> okay. was that the exextent of the diss of -- gist of the conversation? >> it was a phone call. >> did you ever give senator feinstein or anyone else permission to release that letter. >> not that i know of. >> okay. between the letter date, july 30th and august the

7th, did you speak with any other person about your allegations? >> could you say the dates again? >> between the letter date of july 30th and august 7th, so while you were still in delaware, did you speak with any other person about your allegations? >> just trying to remember what dates that -- >> with permission of any lawyers you had spoken with, correct? >> correct. >> correct. i think correct. i was interviewing lawyers. >> start the clock. >> okay. speaking personally about it. >> aside from lawyers that you were seeking to possibly hire to represent you, did you speak to anybody else about it during that party? >> no. -- period of time. >> no i was staying with my parents at the time. >> did you talk to them about

it? >> definitely not. >> so would it be fair to say that you retained counsel during that time period of july 30th to august 7th? >> i can't remember the exact date but i was interviewing lawyers during that period of time, sitting in the car, in the driveway and in the walgreens parking lot in rehopth, delaware, trying to figure out how the whole system worked. interviewing lawyers and how to pick one, et cetera. >> you testified earlier that you had, you didn't see the need for lawyers and now you're trying to hire them. what made you change your mind? >> it seems like most of the individuals that i had told, which the total number, the total was not very high, but persons advised me to at this point get a lawyer for advice and felt whether to push forward or to stay back. >> did that include congresswoman eshoo an senator

feinstein? >> no. >> i want to thank dr. ford for what you said about acknowledging that we had said we would come to california. senator blumenthal. >> thanks, mr. chairman. i want to join in thanking you for being here today and, just tell you i have found your testimony powerful and credible and i believe you. you're a teachers correct? >> correct. >> you have given america an amazing teaching moment and, you may have other moments in the classroom but you have inspired and you have enlightened america. you have inspired and given courage to women, to come forward, as they have done to

everyone of our offices and many other public places. you have inspired and you have inline it inned -- enlightened men in america to listen respectfully to women survivors and men who have survived sexual attack and that is a profound public service regardless of what happens with this nomination. and so the teachers of america, people of america, should be really proud of what you have done. let me tell you why i believe you. not only because of the prior consist tent statements and polygraph tests and your request for an fbi investigation and your urging that this committee hear from other witnesses who could corroborate or dispute your story. but also you have been very honest about what you cannot

remember. and, someone composing a story can make it all come together in a seamless way but someone who is honest, i speak from my experience as a prosecutor as well, it is also candid about what she or he cannot remember. the senators on the other side of the aisle have been silent. this procedure is unprecedented in a confirmation hearing. but i want to quote one of my colleagues, senator lindsey graham in a book that he wrote in 2015 when he was describing his own service and very

distinguished and able service as a trial lawyer -- >> careful, careful. >> i'm not under oath. [laughter]. >> [inaudible] >> he said, quote, of his prosecutions of rape cases, i learned how much unexpected courage from a deep and hidden place it takes for a rape victim or sexually abused child to testify against their assailant. i heard how much courage it takes from a rape or secondly abused child to testify against their assailant. if we agree on nothing else today, i hope on bipartisan basis we can agree how much courage it has taken for you to come forward.

and i think you have earned america's gratitude. there has been some talk about your requesting an fbi investigation and you mentioned a point a few minutes ago you could better estimate the time that you ran into mark judge if you knew the time that he was working at that supermarket. that is a fact that could be uncovered by an fbi investigation. that would help further elucidate your account. would you like mark judge to be interviewed in connection with the background investigation and the serious, credible allegations that you have made? >> that would be my prevalence. i'm not sure it is really up to

me but i certainly would feel like i could be more helpful to everyone if i knew the date that he worked at the safeway so that i could give a more specific date of the assault. >> well it is not up to you, and it is up to the president of the united states and his failure to ask for an fbi investigation in my view is tantamount to a cover-up. thank you, mr. chairman. >> now it is time for senator flake. miss mitchell for senator flake. >> thank you. in, we've heard this morning, several times that you did take a polygraph and that was on august the 7th, is that right? >> i believe so is the day i was flying from bwi to manchester, new hampshire. >> okay. why did you decide to take a polygraph? >> i didn't see any reason not to do it. >> were you advised to do that?

>> again, you're seeming to call for communications between counsel and client. i don't think you mean to do that, if you do, she shouldn't have to answer that. >> would counsel, letter answer the extent that it doesn't violate the relationship between you and dr. ford? >> what you understood. >> the under the advice of the counsel was anticipate to undergo the polygraph test although i found it extremely stressful, much longer than i anticipated. i told my whole life story. i felt like it, but, i endured it.

it was fine. >> i understand that they can be that way. have you ever taken any other polygraphs in your life? >> never. >> okay. >> you went to see a gentleman by the name of jeremiah hanna fin who was the polygrapher. did anyone provides you of that source. >> i believe his name was jerry. >> jerry hannafin. >> did anyone advice you that choice? >> i don't choose him myself. he was the person that came to do the polygraph test. >> he actually conducted the polygraph not in his office in virginia but actually at the hotel next to baltimore-washington airport, that right? >> correct. >> why was that location chosen for the polygraph? >> i had left my grandmother's

funeral at fort lincoln cemetery that day and was on tight schedule to get a plane to manchester, new hampshire. so he was willing to come to me which is appreciated. >> sew administered a polygraph on the day that you attended your grandmother's funeral? >> correct. it might have been the next day. i spent the night in a hotel so. i don't remember the exact day. >> have you ever had discussions with anyone besides your attorneys, on how to take a polygraph? no never. >> and i don't just mean, counter measures but i mean just any sort of tips or anything like that? >> no. i was scared of the test itself but, was comfortable that i could tell the information and,

the test would reveal whatever it was going to reveal? i didn't expect it to be as long as it was going to be. so it was a little bit stressful. >> have you ever given tips or advice to somebody who is looking to take a polygraph test? >> never. >> okay. did you pay for the polygraph yourself? >> i don't, i don't think so. >> okay. do you know who did pay for the polygraph? >> not yet, no. >> did, you have the handwritten statement, that you wrote out. did anyone assist you in writing that statement? >> no, but you can tell how anxious i was by the terrible handwriting. >> did you, we touched on it earlier, did you know that the committee has requested the, not

only the charts from the polly graph test but any a you had yo or video recording of the polly graph test? >> no. -- polygraph. >> were you audio or video recorded when you were taking that test? >> so i remember being hooked up to a machine like being placed on to my body. and i being asked a lot of questions and crying a lot. that is my primary memory of that test. i don't know, i know he took laborious details into explaining what he was going to be doing but i was just focused on kind of what i was going to say and my fear about that. i wasn't listening to every detail about the, what whether it was audio or video recorded. >> well, you were in a hotel room, right? >> correct. >> regular hotel room with a bed and bathroom? >> no no. it was a conference room. i was sitting at a chair and he was behind me? >> did you know any cameras in

the room? >> well, yeah he had a computer set up. i souped he was somehow taping and recording me. >> you were assumed you were being video and audio recorded but you don't know for sure. >> i don't for sure. >> thank you. >> we'll recess now for a half hour for lunch. thank you, dr. ford. [inaudible]. >> neil: all right you have been watching this ongoing saga gripping the nation now. christine blasey ford testifying before the senate judiciary committee. the takeaway line highlight of her testimony these many hours she is 100% certain, no doubt that brett kavanaugh was her attacker. she was 15 years old. he was 17. she is requiring to rebut a gop argument out there, that we're

told that judge kavanaugh will echo, this might have happened but he wasn't behind it. so a case of mistaken identity. she, went on to say that a number of instances back and forth, on this exchanges with this special prosecutor, rachel mitchell, that brett's assault on me drastically altered my life. she talked of four years right after this having tough time at school, in life, with boyfriends and the problem, the conundrum in republicans having rachel mitchell ask all the questions, democratic senators are not adhering to that. so they get to make their brief statements, their five minutes and during that time, with each and everyone they have been praising dr. ford. so, how is this all sorting out? are republicans in a position where they might just say, well, maybe this wasn't such a good idea? we obviously want to see where the prosecutor is taking this. ultimately how the judge himself

responds to all of this. former federal prosecutor sydney powell. what do you think? >> neil, this is quite the spectacle. i think we expected that. i do think the republican senators were well-advised to have the prosecutor ask the questions because they were going to be made out to be the bad guys completely if they had done this themselves and as i expected the democratic senators are making wonderful speeches to extol her virtues and courage in coming forward. one of the things that really concerns me though is how broad a definition we are using here of the term, sexual assault. most prosecutors and laws define that as being rape. she was far from being raped. she hasn't even alleged that any body part was exposed. she said he tried to take her clothes off, supposedly but

nothing came off apparently. it was all a fumbled attempt to make out with a girl at a party it sounds like and, there are just all kinds of problem with it aside from the fact that there is absolutely no corroboration. it is recovered memory which are suspect and difficult to begin with, but even if she had reported all of these facts at the time it happened, now 36 years ago, i see nothing that a prosecutor would have found to prosecute. if we start policing 17-year-old boys and 15-year-old girls at party who try to make out with each other, we'll have a big problem of overcriminalization. neil: you know, sidney, she was the one who said, i believe i'm quoting correctly, i believed he, brett kavanaugh, was going to rape me. but to your point there was no rape. there was no outright assault

but, are details getting lost in the overall appearance here of a woman who comes across, comes across i should say as credible enough to give some of the senators on that panel, who might be on the fence some doubt? >> well, it will be interesting to see how many women actually find her credible. frankly i do not. the emotion that i'm seeing does not appear to me to be real at all anymore than it could be spawned from her being in this position to testify on national television with i don't know how many cameras literally in her face about this. and you know, the shaky voice to the extent it is there could be nothing more being in that spotlight and situation. there were certainly no tears. there were certainly no description of anything, any prosecutor that i know of would actually call a sexual assault.

so, if we take the names out of this, and pretend like we're just talking about a 15-year-old boy and a 17-year-old, i'm sorry, a 17-year-old boy and a 15 -year-old girl, where do we want to draw the lines in allowing people to insert criminal conduct in that kind of behavior. frankly i didn't find her story credible about going up the stairs, all of sudden being pushed from behind by somebody that she didn't know was there. why was she going up the stairs in the first place? that doesn't make sense. neil: you answered my next question. the prosecutor asking questions very thorough, do you think republicans might regret the way they're going about this. they didn't want to look like a bunch of old white men badgering a woman making serious charges against a guy that wants to put on the supreme court, in the line of rachel mitchell's questioning, you're a great prosecutor, i'm certainly not,

the law intimidates me period but some obvious questions like the one you just raised. to get to the point quicker, there is methodical nature of this, but democratic senators are not deferring to miss mitchell, allowing her to ask questions on their behalf. they're asking their own or stating their own and their opinion and they would have sort of like the advantage for the moment. what do you think? >> they do have that for the moment. i believe that will change as the questioner gets farther along in the process. she is already made a very good point about miss ford not knowing apparently that the senate committee was willing to come out to talk to her, to send people to her and she is completely dispelled the notion that miss ford was afraid to fly. miss ford flies all the time. neil: no i definitely saw where she was going there, sidney. one other thing i wanted to get from you, you mentioned this is

going back to teenage years and that there was no rape going on here. as you know, judge kavanaugh says this didn't even happen, didn't even happen. >> exactly. neil: so what is he going to do now? he have to say as did clarence thomas when he was coming up after anita hill, no, no, no. where does he go? >> all he can do say i don't know what happened to her. i wasn't there. i mean he is going to find himself saying that repeatedly i'm sure. and i'm sure he is the kind of man who is very concerned for the welfare of other women. he has two adorable daughters but all he can basically come down to is, you know, i'm sorry, she had some traumatic experience but i wasn't there. it wasn't me. and there are scads of cases of wrongful identification, particularly dealing with the issue of recovered memory which

is what she has here. there is whole book about misidentification, picking cotton, where a woman wrongly accused a man of raping her. the duke lacrosse rape case reported at time, dna even obtained and they were indicted for something they didn't do. another line we need to draw, how far back are we going to let people go into anyone's life? to try to stir up something and make allegations? how long will we let people come out with allegations against somebody that can't be corroborated and give people any credence at all. neil: you've been patient, sidney. one more, about how this ensues. obviously running way behind schedule here, five minute rule notwithstanding or whatever. look, when judge kavanaugh arrives and long after dr. ford has left. he will be questioned not only by this prosecutor, rachel mitchell, most certainly

democratic senators who have not been so kind to the woman making charges. he could be in for double jeopardy, right? >> you know. i'm sure they are going to come at him with hammer and tong. i can't imagine the vicious nature of questions he is getting ready to face. >> the prosecutor's well, right? she will try to get to the same issues. so, he likely won't get a break. >> he will not get a break. that much is for sure. neil: all right. >> really feel for him and his whole family. i think a lot of the country does too. we're seeing there is abs a absolutely no bottom to the depths the democrats will go to try to regain power and block his appointment to the supreme court. neil: sidney powell, former federal prosecutor, very good read what is going on now. they're in a brief voting break. some votes to take up in the united states senate. they will return momentarily in the middle of all of this. we got word from john roberts,

our white house correspondent for fox news, the president apparently spoke with rod rosenstein, the deputy attorney general. they were going to have a chat today about his future what was going on. we understand now that they plan to meet next week, according from sarah sanders. they do not want to do anything to interfere with the hearing. blake burman at the white house on all of these developments. blake? reporter: very clear here, neil at the at the white house, focus solely today, at least biggest single focus, overwhelmingly majority of it is the hearing going up own capitol hill. rod rosenstein was supposed to be headed to the white house, for the big meeting with the president. potential job status update with the deputy ag meeting face-to-face. we're told that will happen next week. the white house saying they want to keep the hearing, they don't want to distract from that. president trump on air force one, remember he started his day in new york, to wrap up his meetings there over at the u.n., that the president aboard air force one flying back

here to washington was indeed watching the hearing aboard air force one. we don't know if he, if he started from the beginning and had only seen up until that point or was watching live and missed the front end of it. in any event the bottom line the president watching today. when he got off of marine one at the white house, he strolled right into the residence side of the white house. he was asked by myself, several other reporters here for comment on the hairing. the president did not comment at all. he walked straight into the white house. clearly the president wants to see this through, wants this all to play out before making any sort of comment. give you idea, neil, how this is front ant center. there is economic summit going on at a the eob, part of the complex at the white house ground. vice president mike pence was supposed to make remarks there. that not happening either. neil. neil: all eyes fix eighted on this. blake burman, thank you very much. from the other end of pennsylvania avenue, the capitol. neil: edward lawrence is there.

what is going on, edward? reporter: emotional day for christine blasey ford as she is giving her testimony, on the verge of tears several times as she recounted made accusations saying judge brett kavanaugh, then a teenager and a friend pushed her into a bedroom and jumped on top of her, she said she felt like she was going to be raped. senator dick durbin in the room, he wanted a clarification of her memory. listen. >> dr. ford, with what degree of certainty do you believe bret carve gnaw assaulted you? >> 100%. reporter: to begin this hearing senator chuck grassley, the chairman of this committee said, they have investigated all of the allegations including ford's. >> my staff reached out to other individuals allegedly at the party, mark judge, patrick smyth, leland kaiser. all three submitted statements to the senate under penalty of felony, denying any knowledge of the events described by

dr. ford. dr. ford's lifelong friend, miss kaiser, stated, she doesn't know judge kavanaugh and doesn't recall ever attending a party with him. reporter: for her party, ranking democrat on the committee, senator dianne feinstein defended her act a shuns holding on to this letter for about six weeks. >> she rerate ited she wanted this held confidential and i held it confidential up to a point where the witness was willing to come forward. reporter: during most of this questioning they turned it over to a career prosecutor who questioned the memory of ford. >> would it be fair to say that somebody drove you somewhere, either to the party or home from the party? >> correct. >> okay. has anyone come forward to say to you, hey, remember i was the one that drove you home? >> no.

reporter: she could also not remember where the party was or what date it happened, neil? neil: thank you very, very much, my friend. edward lawrence on capitol hill a lot more to go on this hearing. we'll hear more from dr. ford and precise questioning it mate be from rachel mitchell. many argue aing it can be tortuous and detailed. all that is fine. democratic senators are not bound by the tortuous detail. they will make large political statements indicting republicans and administration and praising dr. ford. so republicans are hoping this pace and tone changes and quickly and soon. but the markets are not worried. they're up a lot. technology is back. more after this.

...

welcome back. i am neil cavuto. they're going to break for now. they're going to resume in about 15 minutes or so. it seems to me they are running way, way behind behind schedule here. maybe that should have been expected this is getting later and later and later. a lot more we still want to hear from doctor ford. the judge has to give his chance and opportunity to respond. far, far better, better, our capitol hill producer. how is this going timewise? >> no one laid out an

affirmative timeline. the formal guidance from the committee last night is they could not estimate how long it would take. chuck grassley, a couple of times has stopped the clock. getting a clarification on something or something is looking something up with the notebook. we think that, in terms terms of questioning time, about 45 minutes-one hour. there is an unrelated floor vote in the senate right now. undersecretary of defense. nothing to do with what is going on with brett cavanaugh. we probably will not start again until 115-120 p at the first. the first two senators out-of-the-box, if they go the way we think, -- jeff flake of arizona. one of the people on the fence here about the nomination. whether or not he breaks for most of his colleagues. he, in fact, asks questions.

neil: i did wonder. someone could interpret the prosecutor being pretty much the bulk of the republican questioning of doctor ford. that is telegraphing a no vote on the judge. what do you think? >> that could be interpreted that way. everyone will look for different sides from jeff flake. the only member that is sort of outstanding when it comes to this. susan collins of maine, lisa murkowski of alaska and bob corker of tennessee. i want to point out something that may not be apparent if you're watching this on television, they go around and the senators are seated up higher, they have mitchell at a table that is usually reserved for one of the clerks. if this was another type of hearing. she is not on the same level where the witnesses are. that could be an issue of how that plays with christine blasey

ford. also could be an issue with brett cavanaugh when he comes later this afternoon. cavanaugh, is in fact, on capitol hill. the buzz around the capital is what can brett cavanaugh due to changes narrative to kind of counteract anything that christine blasey ford has said in the testimony here today. most folks, the initial buzz when you come up in the hallway to talk to people that a bit both in the room and out of the room, they think she is doing pretty well overall, neal b what the judges up on capitol hill. >> there is kind of a garage that runs between the two buildings. this hearing is in the dirksen building. they are connected. he is somewhere in a holding facility. bringing these witnesses then. same thing with rachel mitchell. this has all been trying to keep it out of the public eye.

they are very concerned about that media circus. i was struck by this. four or five democratic house members in the room. carolyn maloney was one of them from new york city. shelley who was a democrat maine when ford concluded her testimony, i noticed that shelley from maine took off her glasses and appeared to wipe away a tear. i spoke with alyssa milano, the actress, who is in the hearing room sitting next to kiersten gillibrand, as you know, a big player in the #metoo movement. she was only 18 years old at the time, she watched the hell thomas hearings in 1991. this, she thinks, thinks, is a lot different. pat leahy, the democratic senator thinks it failed and 1991. neil: when they resume eventually with the judge, when doctor ford is gone, isn't it

possible that the judge, you know, gets hit on both sides. the prosecutor rachel mitchell is going to ask the same type of detailed type question she had been asking to ford and democratic senators, of course, will be relevant lists. during in these other women set of allegations. it will be very different. base back in 1991 where he where he decided to focus on the democratic senators and virtually tried to ignore anita hill's allegations just to focus on them. >> yes. getting into that dynamic. democrats do have to be careful here. they cannot be perceived as being too aggressive or unfair to cavanaugh. yes, they can go after him and raise serious questions and doubts. how it compares to what christine blasey ford has said. i noticed at the beginning of the hearing, they took an hour

and 17 minutes last time. different antics and shenanigans the last set of hearings, an hour and 17 minutes. chuck crassly got the hearing back on track. everybody's manners so far today have been emily post. no protesters. no antics from the democrats. they have to walk that line. it is probably a good path for them, frankly, neil. neil: far better and closer to this and i will ever be. they like, democrats like the way it is going out. don't interrupt it. let it play out. >> upstaging. they do not want to literally upstage the key witness here who it's christine blasey ford. neil: thank you, buddy. >> my pleasure. neil: a former speechwriter. conveying with the words you use. if you don't mind, how do you think doctor ford is doing?

>> yeah, you know, neil, i approach it very differently. one of the problems is this is a kind of question we are asking. we are dissecting this. the color brett cavanaugh's tie. i think we should be talking about evidence. we have an un- substantiated charge. at the end of the day, we will have no more evidence supporting this charge and we do now. the three witnesses that she has named that refutes it. credibility on tv. if that were the test, you know, bill clinton and bill cosby were both pretty good on tv. the judge was lousy on tv. i do not think that should be the standard. i think the standard should be evidence. are we going to deny a man a job and smear him on the basis of a 35-year-old allegation with no other evidence? i am old-fashioned. if you're going to destroy man and humiliate his family on tv,

i think you need some evidence. neil: fully agree with that. we also live in a world where appearances count for a great deal. never talking with some democratic senators, you know, making a credible case, despite anita hill's allegations at the time against client thomas, he still became a supreme court judge. leaving aside that because getting exact details in the surgical approach this prosecutor rachel mitchell was using, she would have to take the same approach as the judge. one could argue that when the judge gets up there, trying to deny a negative, not only with her, but with democratic senators who no doubt chomp at the bit to sort of, you know, add more dirt and i. >> this is a show trial. her all the senators on the committee, they have made up their mind. most of the democrats in the

senate have made up their mind. as you said, i could not agree more. what can brett kavanaugh do to clear his name? to tell his children i am not in attempted rape us. neil: do think that will be the effect, too, with the senators up for reelection? some have cover now to vote no. what do you think? >> we don't know how that will play out. we live in a world where appearances matter. we certainly do. we do not have to like it and we certainly do not have to indulge it. let's get back to evidence. this week has seen insane charges. georgetown prep. no evidence at all. will that be the standard? i think that is a really bad place for this country to be. again, old-fashioned. i want want to see evidence. no one is talking about evidence or the lack thereof. it seems to me that if a man is

going to be smeared, there are to be be some evidence to cooperate it. >> you are great speech writer. you know the power of fords. you also know the power of those words coming on someone's heart. no one is doubting that, number one. i could go on and on. the guy is a genius. is he all iq in this approach and not enough eq? do you suspect he will do what he is capable of doing? clarence thomas back in your face kind of thing. >> i hope he does some sort of thing like that. he is not my best friend, but i know who he is. i used to follow his family on facebook. you know what their children and so forth. i hope he thinks of those two girls before he goes out there. again, should a man be be punished, should that be the hanging offense that you are not

the best on tv? you are not the best actor? you're not as good as clinton avenue biting your lip and looking sad? i think that is a terrible standard. back to anita hill, people did not believe her. pretty hefty margin. if you remember in the course of those hearings, the fbi agents who interviewed her, even submitted an affidavit that what she told them in the interview was at odds with what she said in her testimony. neil: yeah. that was a very big point of, you know, departure with some of the republican senators at the time who were a minority in that committee. of course thomas still eat through and as a prim court justice. take you very, very much. >> thank you, neil. neil: j christian adams. what are you looking at how this comes so far question what do you rachel mitchell was a risk?

specializing in sex crimes and the like to do the questioning on republican senators behalf. good idea? >> she exposed a number of serious inconsistencies and changing stories. that is why we have statutes of limitation in this country. 30, 40, 50 years later you cannot have people subjected to this sort of ritual defamation that seems to be going on. people coming out of the woodwork. >> i understood where the line of questioning was going about you are afraid of flying. you have flown all over the world. getting to that point. whether it is registering. that is what i am talking about. >> i think it registers with the senators who will decide this. i think people understanding

consistencies when you say you can't fly but you go to tahiti and costa rica and all over the world, it just does not make sense. x number of people were at the party and all of a sudden it's more than ask, it does not make sense. i think she may believe some of this. i think it's 30 almost 40 years ago where memories fog. we know that holding arms and this party scene had a wild truly astonishing level of debauchery and alcohol. i would like to hear that question asked. were you drunk? it just was not asked. not because she would deserve it, but it would cloud memories. neil: knowing 100% it was it was brett kavanaugh. when he eventually gets up there and all this is running late i understand, it is hard to say for sure, he will have to deal with some very tough questions from democratic senators as well as pointed once from rachel mitchell who will cross-examine pretty much the way she was going after doctor ford.

unlike clarence thomas appearing after anita hill and 91, there will not appear to be a friendly off switch for him. >> well, you know, let's see if other republicans yield their time. i would be surprised if they all did. i think ted cruz is well suited to take over the reins on that score. this is a war over the constitution. we have seen absolute mayhem in the last three weeks. hundreds of people in washington willing to do anything to stop this nomination. i think people out in america find this incredibly distasteful i do not know whether or not they believe her. she may believe what she is saying. it was so long ago. that is why we have due process. that is why we have statute of limitation. neil: i understood a little bit of what rachel mitchell was getting at about two paid for your lie detector test, who was in the room, was it video paid, recorded, et cetera.

an operative base of people supporting her in getting her to this point even in that hearing room. >> fascinating about these mysterious friends on the beach. who did they tell her to call? neil: that struck me as well. the new york times and the washington post will save you. this is a woman who has donated to democrats. she is an ideological activist. neil: do you believe her? she also said any of the other justices could come to the floor, they would not have prompted this. she did this because it was brett kavanaugh. >> right. that is what she said. it was after he was picked. neil: on the shortlist. then she says she does not know how to contact the white house. a woman with four advanced degrees and clearly linked into politics. there are some things in her

story that i do not think have been fully revealed who has been driving this. we know things do not happen by accident in washington. neil: always good talking to you, my friends. thank you very much. they will go back to the hearing shortly. you're probably wondering why the dow is up so much. connell mcshane is following it all at the new york stock exchange. >> having any impact on market action. we would not necessarily expect it to. no reason in the near-term to make or lose money as important as the direction of the supreme court may be to the country overall. the only thing maybe you make an argument and i've seen some analysts writing about this is the odds of the republican somet move pricewise. we did expect this a little bit on volume. volume overall was running last

time we checked about 50% below where it normally would be. we will see how that plays out there out the day. give you a little bit of antidotal color here at the new york stock exchange. never really very much action during the day. most of the physical movement, for lack of a better term, comes at the opening and closing bell. just walking around, the television volumes are turned up everybody is watching this hearing and paying attention to that. that is not something you normally see. i mentioned technology. those stocks are doing well. positive analyst comments about amazon, apple. those stocks are helping to lead this market higher. two, two and a half% higher. up as many as 171 points. up 138 right now on the dow jones industrial average. neil: many have said this is a nod for investors. they are riveted.

the volume is less than half of what it was yesterday at this time. i don't know if that is true or not. they are obviously distracted. do you think or have you talk to people that if something were to take his nomination that that would be an unexpected development? >> it might. one of the things that i saw and speaking to people about this, looking at analysts note, the odd of republicans, just a point of reference, the audit the republicans keeping the senate if it were to change, 70% odds, if that were to come down and the dems more likely to take the senate than not, then you start to get it to tell yourself a story that if the kavanaugh nomination failed to democrats take the senate, to the president have trouble getting someone on the supreme court, then you make an argument that it has affect stocks. near-term, it seems like people

are just focus on other things more for the market, at least, a volume event rather than a crisis event today. neil: i will let you wade through the crowd there on the floor. jostling with that. thank you very much. we will take a quick break here, folks. what about that rod rosenstein meeting he was going to have with the president of the united states? they put it off and they were very honest about it, because of this hearing which it will get back to in a matter of minutes after this. plus depreciation. liberty mutual insurance. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

...if we listened more? could the right voice, the right set of words, bring us all just a little closer, get us to open up, even push us further? it could. if we took the time to listen. the most inspiring minds. the most compelling stories. download audible. and listen for a change.

download audible.

hey, what are you guys doing here? we're voya. we stay with you to and through retirement. so you'll still be here to help me make smart choices? well, with your finances that is. we had nothing to do with that tie. voya. helping you to and through retirement. neil: they are about to resume this hearing right now. the bottom line is for those thinking or those republicans concerned about this hearing happening in a way it would roll out with doctor ford and the accuser of judge kavanaugh, her concern originally wanting to testify second after the judge, they said, no, you will testify

first. we will have a prosecutor talking to you, not us asking the question. seeing where the prosecutor rachel mitchell is going. they may regret the format and how this is going about. as smart and surgical as this rachel mitchell has been, democratic senators have been free to in your, which i have, and have asked questions more praised of their own towards the professor. that could come back to boomerang on that. jonathan is joining us on the phone. good to have you back. what do you make of how this is going? >> i'm not too sure the republicans really expected to take down. the questions could not be aggressive without creating bad optics. the pace is obviously gray show from the respect of the republicans. this is a foundation laying approach.

they have very limited time. mitchell will run out of time. i think the most interesting questions coming from mitchell, in terms of credibility, focused on her drive back from the party i expect to see more of that now when they come back. she asked, you know, -- after te alleged attempted rape, someone else did. she said that is true. there was just one follow-up question, i'm sure there would be more, well, hasn't that person talk to you? she described herself being very upset, running from the party, obviously she left before she expected to. that was the area that i thought mitchell laid some damaging foundation for doctor ford. we will see if she is going to follow up on that. >> the judge eventually gets up there.

he is being questioned by rachel mitchell with the same sort of prosecutorial approach. let's get your story versus her story. compare the stories. he says this never happens. i am 100% sure it sure it is brett kavanaugh. you have democratic senators going after him as well. bringing up these other women's names. what do you expect from that portion of the event? >> it will be a very different hearing. the reluctance on both sides is being perceived as aggressive or drilling down on this witness. simply will not be there with judge kavanaugh. the democrats have already said they believe her. they believe he is an attempted racist. he will not be putting on kid gloves. they will go after him. the problem for him is he is pretty much locked into playing defense.

he looks like pursuing someone who says she is a victim of attempted rape. if you stay on defense, it is pretty hard to gain. >> position has has been, even in our interview, never happens. maybe something did happen with doctor ford. his friend who was there at the time. democrats, boy, we ought to get them in here to talk to him. this is a much distraction where each one perceives credibility. forget about in the eyes of the public. what about those wayward senators? jeff flake, for example, is among those that could skew rachel mitchell and ask questions of his own. what do you make of that? does this cement a yes or no vote? what do you think?

>> i do not think that this turns out well for kavanaugh. the optics are not good. i think she is presenting herself well. i have a column today saying what is missing here is a standard of review. particularly the democrats have gone out of their way to say there is no standard review. we do not have an obligation in terms of what we use. that is just too easy. the preponderance of the evidence standard. that is lower than beyond reasonable doubt and higher than near preponderance. about 75% confident one side or the other. these senators i think are moving to a very dangerous area. we do not have any standards to apply.

a credibility thing. when senators do that, they go with the policy. they go with whatever their gut tells them is good politics at the moment. >> that may explain. he, of course, has been saying we should delay a vote on this. others have gone even stronger to say the judge should step down. saying this woman's credibility proves that. credibility is always in the eye of the beholder. details from four decades ago, maybe that is something in a balloon that has popped or appears we go on here. the better she does or seems to be holding her own, by definition, raises that possibility that the judge never makes it. >> well -- that is the reality

of this situation for him. he will go in and i expect he will speak with passion. what was lacking in his prior testimony was he appeared stiff. all of that has to drop away. not scripted. i feel angry. she is going across, and, i think this is genuine as a vulnerable person who truly believes these allegations, and i think that resonates with the public. brett kavanaugh is going to have to show that he is a person, too it is very frustrating to face these kind of allegations.

consciously say i am not an attempted racist. >> yeah. that is what it all comes down to. she will say if he had his way he whatever it me and he will say that is ridiculous. the american people and what they believe. it is a crucial senators on that committee. we will decide this. jonathan, thank you very, very much. we're going to try to get in a quick break. worried about the back and forth going. they have a funny way of showing it. a lot of robust comments about technology. another 30% in the next few months. optimistic for that technology retail giant fortunes. apple putting in a record-setting pace. we will get to all of that after this.

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.

this is loma linda, a place with one of the highest ♪ life expectancies in the country. you see so many people walking around here in their hundreds. so how do you stay financially well for all those extra years? well, you have to start planning as early as possible. we all need to plan, for 18 years or more, of retirement. i don't have a whole lot saved up, but i'm working on it now. i will do whatever i need to do. ♪ plan your financial life with prudential. bring your challenges. thirty-one back and watching the senate judiciary committee. you are looking at christine

blasey ford. there have been no protests. no people thrown out of the room. everything has been very orderly for republicans they have left it to the maricopa county arizona prosecutor who specializes in sex primes to do all of their questioning. a very good surgical jobs with this. some of the key points of whether people put her up to this, whether democrats are paying for a lot of the stuff we are watching right now. so far not really laid a glove on her yet. we shall see. the hearing is resuming as we speak. >> i am ready. >> okay.

senator. >> thank you, mr. chairman. is it your intent to see all time to your prosecutor rather than they themselves seeding their time to her? >> yes. >> we all know that the prosecutor, even though this clearly is not a criminal proceeding, is asking doctor ford all kinds of questions about what happened before and after, but basically basically not during the attack. the prosecutor should know that sexual assault survivors often do not remember information such as what happened before and after the traumatic event. yet, she will persist in asking these questions all to undermine the memory and a sickly the credibility of doctor ford. we all know doctor ford's memory of the assault is very clear. doctor ford, the republicans prosecutor has asked you all kinds of questions about who you called and when, asking details that would be asked in a

cross-examination of a witness in a criminal trial, but this is not a criminal proceeding. this is a confirmation proceeding. i think i know what she is trying to get out. i will just ask you very plainly, doctor ford, is there political motivation for your coming forward with your account of the assault by brett kavanaugh? >> no. i'd like to reiterate that again i was trained to get the information to you while there was still a list of other equally qualified candidates. >> and yet they are not here to testify. doctor ford, i would like to join my colleagues to thank you for coming forward today. i and we all admire you for what you are doing and i understand why you have come forward. you wanted us in the american people to know what you knew about the character, the character of the man we are considering for a lifetime

appointment to the supreme court tiered i want to take a moment also to note the significant personal sacrifices you have made to come forward to share your traumatic experience with us and the american people. you have had to move, you have had death threats, all manner of, basically, re- victimization experiences have come your way. i coming forward you have inserted the question of character into this nomination and hopefully back into american life. rightfully so, we should be made to face the question of who it is we are putting in positions of power and decision-making in this country. we should look the question square in the face, does character matter? do our values, our real our real values about what is right and what is wrong and about whether we treat our fellow human beings with dignity and respect, do they matter anymore? they do.

i believe the reaction we have seen to this coverage right now and you're correct all over this country shows us that we are not alone. you are not alone. women and men all across america are disgusted and sick and tired of the way basic human decency has been driven from our public life. the president admits on tape to assaulting women, separates children from their parents, takes basic healthcare protections from those that need the most, he nominates a stand behind a man who stands credibly accused of a horrible act. i again want to thank you for coming forward. mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent that six items consisting of their statements, letters, track sheets, posts are inserted into the record. >> to to wait for six? >> i've six separate items. i can go over them for you.

>> let me not interrupt you. your request is accepted without rejection. >> thank you. i would like to read from an item that has already been entered into the record. this is from a letter from the national child force to end domestic violence. this letter has become an crucible. a test of our progress. we start by believing victims of sexual assault and treating them with dignity or don't we? so far, senate leaders are filling that test. prejudging the outcome of a hearing. sympathizing with her perpetrator. attacking her credibility. they send a message to every victim of sexual violence that their pain does not matter. that they do not deserve justice and that, for them, them, their treatment is out of reach. this will only serve to drive

victims into the shadows and further and bolding abusers. once again doctor ford thank you very much. this is a moment for our country >> senator, ms. mitchell for senator. >> that afternoon. when we left off we were still talking about the polygraph and i believe he said it has not been paid for yet. is that correct? >> let me put in into this. her lawyers have paid for her polygraph. >> as his routine. >> as his routine. >> doctor ford, do you expect the price of that polygraph to be passed on to you? >> i'm not sure yet. i've not taken a look at all of

the costs involved. relocated now twice. i've not kept track of all that paperwork. i'm sure i have a lot of work to do to catch up on all that later. >> i get you a lot going on. is it your understanding that someone else is going to assist you with some of these fees, including the cost for your polygraph? >> i am aware that there been several go fun besides that i have not had a chance to figure out how to manage those because i have not had one. >> i'm sorry, what? >> go fun besides that have raised money for our details. i'm not sure how to collect that money or distribute it yet. i've not been able to focus on that. >> okay. and your testimony this morning, you stated that senator feinstein sent you a letter on

august 31 of this year. is that right? >> i sent her a letter on july july 30. i do not have the day. i would have to pull up my e-mail to find out the date of her e-mail to me saying -- it was right before the hearings that she was going to maintain the confidentiality of the letter. >> say that again. until right before the hearing? >> i can look it up for you. i could pull it up on my e-mail. >> i want to make sure i understood what you said. >> that document has turned over. you have it. >> thank you, counsel. >> i want to make sure i understood what you said.

was it your understanding it would be kept confidential up until right before the hearing? >> it was my understanding it would be kept confidential. >> okay. between your polygraph on auguse letter from senator feinstein, did you or anyone on your behalf speak to any member of congress or congressional staff about these allegations? >> i personally did not. >> so my question was, did you or anybody on your behalf? >> what you mean, did someone someone speak for me? >> somebody that is working with you or helping you tiered did somebody at your behalf, on your behalf speak to somebody in congress or staff? >> i'm not sure. i am not sure how those

exchanges went. i didn't speak to anyone. >> okay. >> is it possible that somebody did? >> i think so. it's possible. i'm guessing it would be possible. but i don't know. >> okay. >> you asked her not to guess, but now you are asking her what is possible. if you want to ask her what she knows, you should ask her what she knows. >> rule on that. >> you should answer questions -- unless there is a legal reason for not answering it on advice of your counsel. >> i do not totally understand the question, but it i hundred --dash that i did not speak to anyone in that timeframe other than counsel. >> you have said repeatedly that

you did not think that that letter that you wrote on july 30 would be released to the public. is that correct? >> correct. >> is it true that you did not authorize it to be released at any time? >> correct. >> besides your attorneys, did you provide, you provided that letter to senator feinstein, is that correct? >> i provided her a letter on on july 30. >> we're talking about the july july 30 letter. you provided that to senator feinstein, correct? you provided the letter to representative su to deliver it to senator feinstein. >> yes. >> besides those two individuals , and your attorneys, did you provide that letter to anyone else? >> no. >> do you know how that letter

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

foolish in. prosecutors have been engaged here to represent my colleagues, you are here under a civic duty, as you you said. i want to join my colleagues, it is really more than that. our founding documents talk about civic duty, a declaration of independence talks about pledging your fortunes and sacred honor. anyone who has read your testimony knows what you have had to sacrifice by coming forward. your life has been ended. you have received vicious, hateful threats, death threats. you've had to move out of your family home, to some expense, i imagine, to you and your family. you've had to engage security to some extent. you have had to deal with incredible challenges. and, what is amazing, and i want to join my colleagues and thanking you for your courage and bravery coming forward all to help us deal with one of the

most important obligations a senator has, to advise and consent on one of the branches of our government. the highest courts in the land. an individual going before lifetime appointment. even said the president had a lot of folks on that list. your fear was that this individual who assaulted you what is said to that. that is correct, right? >> correct. >> yes. and it is correct you have taken a lot of threats, given resources to come forward be met correct. >> assault on your dignity and humanity. >> absolutely. >> how is it affected your children? >> they are doing fairly well, considering. thank you for asking. >> and her husband? >> doing fairly well, considering. thank you. we have a very supportive community. >> i want to use a different word for your courage. as much as this hearing is about

supreme court justice, you are affecting the culture of our country. we have a wonderful nation, and incredible culture. there are dark elements that allow unconscionable levels of sexual assault and harassment that are affecting girls and boys and affecting men and women from big media outlets to corporations to factory floors to servers and restaurants to our intimate spaces in homes and apartments all around this country. i stepped out during the break and was dilution with notes from friends all around the country, social media posts that there are literally hundreds of thousands of people watching your testimony right now. note after note that i got, people in tears feeling pain and anguish. not just feeling your pain, but feeling their own. you are opening up to open air hurt and pain that goes on

across this country. for that, the word i was use, nothing short of heroic. what you are doing for nation now despite giving testimony is you are speaking truth that this country needs to understand. how we deal with survivors to come forward right now is unacceptable. the way we deal with this, unfortunately, allows for the continued darkness of this culture to exist. brilliance shining light on this speaking truth is nothing short of heroic. to the matter at hand, one of my colleagues who i have a lot of respect for and i do consider him a friend, went to the senate floor and spoke truth to both sides of the political i/o, senator flake said yesterday, this is a lifetime appointment and this is said to be a deliberative body.

in the interest of due diligence and fairness, her claims must be fully aired and considered. i agree with him. you have asked for things that would give a full airing from cooperating witnesses to be called. you submitted to and intrusive polygraph test. can you answer for me how you feel that all the things that could've been done thoroughly have not been honored. in the so-called investigation. >> i wish that i could be more helpful and that others could be more helpful and we could collaborate in a way that would get more information. >> seven letters from land to legal for mormon women from ethical government. you've led organizations from

around this country. the international unions, bricklayers, a letter from 295 survivors of sexual violence in support of doctor ford and a letter from 1600 men to campaign in support of doctor ford. those that want to assert men and women, survivors of sexual violence are not opportunists. do not have access but are coming forward with courage and heart to speak their truth and try to end sexual assault and violence in our country. >> without objection, senator. >> doctor ford, in choosing attorneys, did anyone help you with the choice on who to choose? >> various people referred me to lawyers that they knew in the washington, d.c. area.

as you know, i grew grew up in this area. i asked some family members and friends and they referred me to divorce attorneys that may know someone that may know someone and i ended up interviewing several law firms from the d.c. area. >> did anyone besides friends and family refer you to any attorneys? >> i think that the staff of diane feinstein's office suggested the possibility of attorneys. >> including the two that are sitting on either side of you? >> okay. we have heard a lot about the investigations. when did you personally first request an fbi investigation?

>> i guess when we first started talking about the possibility of the hearing i was hoping there would be a more thorough investigation. >> with that investigation have been something you would have to mitt it to? >> i would be happy to cooperate with the fbi, yes. >> would you be happy to submit to an interview by staff members to this committee. >> absolutely. >> okay. you mentioned some gofundme accounts. besides those, are there any other efforts outside your own personal finances to pay for your legal fees or any of the cost occurred? >> it is my understanding that some of my team is working on a pro bono basis, but i do not know the exact details. there are members of the community that have the means to

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

the connection between you and brett kavanaugh. who was this person? >> i think that that case with mr. whalen who was looking at my linkedin page and then trying to blame the person, i just do not think it is right for us to be talking about that. >> i'm not trying to blame anybody. i just want to know -- >> the person that mr. whalen said looked like mr. kavanaugh. >> okay. how long did you know this person? >> may be a couple of months we socialized, but he was also member >> so a couple months before this took place? >> yes. >> how would you characterize your relationship with him both before and after this took place, this person? >> he was somebody we used

phrase i went out with. i wouldn't say date. we went out with. for a few months. that is how i termed that. after that we were distant friends and ran into each other periodically at columbia country club. i didn't see him often. i saw him and his brother several times. >> was this the personally the only common link between you and judge kavanaugh. >> that he is the only one i would like to name now who i would not like to name. you know who i mean. there were other members of columbia country club and friend and acquaintances of mine and mr. kavanaugh. >> can you describe all of the other social interactions you had with mr. kavanaugh? >> briefly, yes i can. there were, during freshmen and

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