"the new york times" would report. the allegation of miss ramirez. and then, stormy daniels lawyer comes up with this incredible story accusing you of the most sordid and salacious it's outrageous. and you're right to be angry. but this is your chance to tell your story, and i hope you have a chance to tell us everything you want to tell us, but the burden is not on you to disprove the allegations made, the burden under our system, when you accuse somebody of criminal conduct is on the person making the accusation. now i understand this isn't a trial, like i said, but i just wanted to make sure that we understoodment it's hard to reconstruct what happened 36 years ago, and i appreciate what you said about dr. ford. that perhaps she has had an

incident at some point in her life, and you are sympathetic to that, and but your reputation is on the line, and i hope people understand the gravity of the charges made against and you what a fair process looks like. >> senator klobuchar? >> thank you, mr. chairman, judge. we have this constitutional duty to advise and consent, and for me when this evidence came forward, i decided that i needed to look at this, and i needed to find out about it, and i needed to ask you questions about it as well as others that were involved. so, again, i'm not going to take quite the same approach as my colleagues here and talk about don mcghan or any of this, why don't you just ask the president. dr. ford can't do this, we clearly haven't been able to do

this, but just ask the president to reopen the fbi investigation. >> i think the committee -- you're doing the investigation, i'm here to answer your questions, and i should say one thing, senator klobuchar, which is, i appreciate our meeting together, and i appreciate how you handled the prior hearing, and i have a lot of respect for you. >> thank you. all of that aside, here's the thing, you could actually just get this open so that we can talk to these witnesses and the fbi can do it instead of us, and you've come before us but we have people like mark judge who dr. ford says was a witness to this. we have this polygraph expert that my colleagues were raising issues about the polygraph. we would like to have that person come before us, and i just think if we could open this up -- >> i don't mean to interrupt, but i guess i am, but mark

judge has provided sworn statements saying this didn't happen and that i never did or would do -- >> but we would like the fbi to be able to follow up and ask him questions. you know, we talked about past nomination processes, and you talked about those, and i note that president george bush in the anita hill/justice thomas case, he opened up the fbi investigation and let questions be asked. and i think it was helpful for people. so was his decision reasonable? >> i don't know the circumstances of that. what i know, senator is -- >> you said the circumstances are that he opened up the investigation so the fbi could ask some questions. he opened up the background check. >> i'm here to answer questions about my year book or about, you know, what a -- sports or -- >> okay, i'm not going to ask about the year book. most people have done some drinking in high school and

college, and many people even struggle with alcoholism and binge drinking. my own dad struggled with alcoholism most of his life, and he got in trouble for it, and there were consequences. he is still in aa at age 90 and he's sober and in his words he was pursued by grace, and that's how he got through this. so in your case, you have said here and other places that you never drank so much that you didn't remember what happened, but yet, we have heard, not under oath, but we have heard your college roommates say that you did drink frequently. these are in news reports, that you sometimes would be belligerent. another classmate said it's not credible for you to say you didn't have memory lapses. so drinking is one thing -- >> i actually don't think that's the second quote is correct. and the first quote, if you want to -- i provided material that is still redacted about

the situation with the freshman year roommate, and i don't really want to repeat that in a public hearing, but just so you know, there were three people in a room, dave white, jamie roach and me, and it was a contentious situation where jamie did not like dave white, at all, and i mean this -- so dave white came back from home one weekend and jamie roach moved all his furniture out into the courtyard, and so he walks in, so that's your source on that, so there's old -- >> drinking is one thing. >> and there's much more, look at the redacted portion of what i said, i don't want to repeat that in a public hearing. redacted information. >> drinking is one thing but the concern is about truthfulness and in your written testimony, you said sometimes you had too many drinks. was there ever a time when you drank so much that you couldn't remember what happened or part

of what happened the night before? >> no. i remember what happened. and i think you've probably had beers, senator, and so -- >> you're saying there's before been a case where you drank so much that you didn't remember what happened the night before or part of what happened? >> you're asking about blackout, i don't know. have you? >> could you answer the question, judge? that's not happened? is that your answer? >> yeah, and i'm curious if you have. >> i have no drinking problem. >> nor do i. >> okay. thank you. >> senator hatch, since this fbi thing keeps coming up all the time, let's get back to basics. first of all, anybody, including any senator that's brought up this issue could ask for an fbi investigation. what the fbi does is gather information for the white

house, then the file's sent for the committee for us to make our own evaluations. we're capable of making our own determination about the accuracy of any of those allegations, the fbi has put out a statement over, now i suppose it's a month ago, clearly stating this matter is closed as far as the letter being sent to them, and there is no federal crime to investigate. if senate democrats hope for the fbi to draw any conclusions on this matter, i'm going remind you what joe biden said. now i said this in my statement, but maybe people aren't listening when i say it. maybe they won't even hear this! joe biden, "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 said he said, she said, they said, period. so when people wave an fbi report before you or even bring it up now as something prospectively, that wasn't in these quote, understand they do not, they do not, they do not reach conclusions. they do not make recommendations. senator hatch. >> mr. chairman. >> you need a break? >> no. >> let me do this. >> may i say for the record that actually we have asked, nobody asked the fbi or we could ask the fbi. i actually have. i think others have, and i think that the issue is that part of what an fbi report does is to investigate and seek either crop rating or exculpatory evidence, not so much the conclusion it draws of the breadth of the evidence sought out during the investigation and the difference between what somebody might say to an fbi

agent when they are being examined and for instance, mr. judge's letter signed by his lawyer sent in. it's just a different thing, and i believe, still, that this is the first background investigation in the history of background investigations that hasn't been reopened when new, credible, derogatory information was raised about the subject, about the nominee. so i didn't want to let the point you made stand without referencing what we had tried to do. >> pardon me. but i'll add to the point you made. theler was sent to the fbi. the fbi sent it to the white house with the letter saying the case is closed. we're taking a break now. we're taking a break now. 15-minute break. . >> you're watching the fox business network, this is "the evening edit" with elizabeth

macdonald. we have a 15 minute recess with the confirmation hearing of judge brett kavanaugh. right to former federal attorney emily. quickly your take what's happening today? >> i think in the beginning we were unsure how and when judge kavanaugh would bring his defense. he absolutely knocked it out of the park with the opening statement. initially rachel mitchell was tepid at times, kind of hard to follow, and i think that she actually brought with her unfortunately an attachment to longtime experience as a prosecutor in arizona are and didn't work well. it did not bode well in the first half. but as i said judge kavanaugh came out swinging, blazing, extremely credible and carried with it through to his answers for the democratic senators here. he is absolutely strong in his testimony today. extremely credible, and to me what this is illustrating is that both can be right. both can earnestly believe something and ultimately up to the senators determine what, a,

the constituents want and b whether the totality of the evidence is such that it rules in favor of him or her. but certainly he absolutely has been excellent in this second half. >> so you are saying both appear credible, is that what you're saying? >> that the overwhelming response to dr. ford's testimony this morning was that she was credible, and to me -- >> wait, wait, did the republicans lay a glove on her? >> the second half, i think they did, by associations. here's what i mean by. that she had this bewildered demeanor, which didn't bode well concerning she's a doctor, a ph.d. she was terrified. clearly something happened to her, she passed that polygraph test, that means she believes her own statements, but here i think the fire has come out in that the weight of what those allegations resulted in, the way the democrats handled this

simply is unacceptable and he, judge kavanaugh responded with a methodical defense, going through absolutely every point that results in the fact there's no corroborating evidence. while she is credible in her clearly, terror and belief that something happened to her, there is zero corroborating evidence. and on the flipside, there is actual evidence he was not there. and i think if you're a democrat watching this, you are relying on the fact that if she said something happened it did, and you're believing that credibility. but if you're a republican, this process is ridiculous and now being rebutted by actual evidence. >> the issue is that the democrats are treating it as accusation tant amount to a conviction. and a fiery, defiant and emotional brett kavanaugh saying this has destroyed me, my family, my good name and my reputation. and to your tonight, senator lindsey graham gave a very emotional defense of brett kavanaugh essentially saying this whole proceeding is a disgrace. we had senator cornyn saying if

this was a court proceeding, half of my colleagues on the other side, the democrats, would be held in contempt because there is no corroborating physical evidence. we should point out what happened earlier in the day, emily. and let's set aside the emotion. this should be about facts. the issue is that upon questioning by ms. mitchell, the prosecutor representing the republicans, emily, you know, dr. ford could not basically, she changed what she initially had said. you can talk a little bit about that? >> you're right, there were inconsistencies that were uncovered in her testimony today, and it involved a whole host of kind of seemingly small things, but that add up to the fact that there is a level of uncertainty that shrouds her accounting of things. involved who was there, where the other students were at the time. were they downstairs? were they in the room? how does she not remember how

she got there or how she got home in the location was further issue. there were questions about her who were paying for things and why she could fly to certain things but she said she had a fear of flying which prevented her from flying initially on the hill. >> i hear that but people are regarding that fear of flying thing as a pile-on of dr. fords, what you're pointing to inconsistencies for viewers and radio listeners. she sent a whatsapp text to the "washington post" which dr. ford initially called a boy attendee by the name of p.j., that he was at this party, she initially said he was a bystander. she changed that saying he was not a witness, he was downstairs, he was not a witness to the event. secondly, she corrected her july 30th letter to senator dianne feinstein saying there may have been more than four people at the event in

question, and said she, quote, can't promise it was kavanaugh who pushed her in the bedroom, she thinks it may have been mark judge, and finally she couldn't remember though this happened in the past two months, couldn't remember if she showed the "washington post" her therapy session notes. you can just speak to all of that? >> thank you for going down those, for illustrating those. absolutely. i think that plays into part that i think at its core, that she is credible in that she clearly believes something happened to her, and potentially something did, but all of those inconsistencies lend questions to the, in fact, was it judge kavanaugh? she herself is not entirely certain it was in those inconsistencies, though as she maintained in opening statements she's 100% certain. the reality is when you make apart for the reasons you just stated, she can't be entirely

certain. there are inconsistencies surrounding it, and in combination with him rebutting with such specifics, such details how he could not have been there and that did not happen, then in the totality of the evidence weighing, i personally think at this point, 100%, it's in the judge's favor. >> emily, you can sit right there. breaking now. the securities and exchange commission, breaking news -- holding a news conference after suing tesla over comments that elon musk said about that he had secured funding to go private. that didn't happen. watch. >> because of the significance of that number in marijuana culture and his belief that his girlfriend would be amused by it. similarly, musk's claim that the only reason why this is not certain is that it's contingent on shareholder vote was also false and misleading. among other things of going private transaction would have required tesla's board to approve a formal proposal but

as alleged in our complaint, no proposal had even been presented to the board. musk created the false impression that the terms of the transaction had been settled when as we alleged they had not been explored. musk tweeted current retail shareholders would have the option of conditioning to hold their shares, though he had been told before he published the tweets that it would be very difficult for retail investors to remain invested in tesla if it were private. and in fact, as he later admitted, there was no way for small shareholders to retain position in tesla if it had gone private. nor had musk investigated whether this transaction purportedly to be financed by a foreign, sovereign wealth fund would require regulatory approvals or be able to obtain them. despite all of these unknowns and uncertainties, musk tweets and blog posts misled investors into believing it was virtually certain that he could take tesla private at a substantial

premium over its then-existing share price, subject only to the contingency of a shareholder vote. >> this case demonstrates our commitment to holding individuals accountable for violations of the federal securities laws. a chairman and ceo of a public company has important responsibilities to shareholders. those responsibilities include the need to be scrupulous and careful about the truth and accuracy of statements made to the investing public. whether those statements are made in a traditional form such as a press release or earnings call or through less formal methods such as twitter or other social media. and as we have said before in connection with other matters, neither celebrity status nor reputation of the technological innovator provide exemption from the federal securities laws. finally, thank the sec team that worked tirelessly over the last two months on this case. they are walker newell, brent smith, barrett atwood, steve

buck holtz and sharyl crumpton. we are happy to take a couple of questions, bear in mind, because this matter is now in litigation, we are limited about what we can say. thank you. >> with cnbc, should elon musk be able to remain a ceo while this is adjudicateed? >> pending of final judgment and the determination by the courts, he would remain in his position unless he or the company made a different decision. yes? reporter: blumberg news, you can talk about why you moved so quickly in this case, seems quicker than similar cases would normally be, and how serious are you about barring him from serving as a director or executive? >> ben, with respect to the speed as i've said and stephanie said before, we believe our actions have the most impact when they're brought most closely in time to the events that bring them forth. we conducted a swift investigation here.

the investigation was complete and it was timed to make a charging decision and we made one. reporter: hi, peter with reuters. does this activity preclude any other additional charges against mr. musk or tesla as the company? >> i think we're not going to comment beyond what's in the complaint that we brought today. >> last question, if there is one? reporter: thanks. in the complaint you specifically say that his actions show that he would do this again. you can explain that a little bit, what transpired that made you think he'd do this again, and do you think that that's been mitigateed? >> yeah, i don't think we can comment beyond the allegations that are in the complaint. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. >> that is the sec talking about their lawsuit against tesla over a tweet that elon musk had made about saying that she had secured funding to go

private when that didn't happen, again holding a news conference on the charges. let's go back to emily. let's go back to what happened with the kavanaugh hearing. let's bring emily back. in here's what was so important about what's going on. senator grassley said earlier today this is a failure process, that really what had happened was they were trying in a bipartisan, confidential way to investigate starting in july the allegations that surfaced from dr. ford. dr. ford even said in testimony she had wanted her letter private. she is now appearing to be upset that that letter was leaked by the democrat side. you can explain all that and take that on? >> exactly, and it really unpackaged a lot for those of us watching the hearing, just how much she went through to try to remain private in the beginning, and how many attempts she made to go through, as she called, the civic process, prior to judge

kavanaugh even making that very short list at the end. so i think to me, it revealed quite a bit of stalling on the democratic party side and especially again, it goes back to what senator feinstein had in her hand, the refusal that she did to even address it. there are certainly many avenues she could have gone through to address the allegations or identify the allegations without identifying the person behind them. so to me, that is the colossal failure. and they went through the time line, right? august 5 to the 6th. letter was in the hands of that senator before she had not only closed-door meetings with judge kavanaugh but private phone calls. to me, that's a failure. >> to your point, important point you made. senator grassley was saying at that point from july through all of these months, never had the democrats or senator dianne feinstein brought up any of this information, and then we just heard just moments ago,

basically judge kavanaugh was being asked, were you ever asked about any of the content or has anybody told you, for example, that dr. ford was, you know, given an idea for a lawyer from senator dianne feinstein's team? did he know about any of that? and judge kavanaugh said never had any idea that any of this was going on while he was giving information to the democrats, and, you know, talking to them for hundreds of hours about why he should be the nominee. nothing was disclosed about anything that was going on behind the scenes. you can speak to that? >> exactly. that's part of why he has testified multiple times, was so blindsided by, this and not only blindsided but aghast that he was. aghast at the fact the information was sitting in the democratic senator's hands and they did nothing with it. i know too on the attorney's side. dr. ford's attorneys are

theatrical in their representation of her as well. there was certainly that kind of teamwork that they were showing, but definitely hostile towards rachel mitchell. the hug that one of the attorneys gave to dr. ford after and glasses moved up to her face, there was certainly a milking for them of the situation and seemed to me that in the former half of the hearing today, there was a lot of reliance upon emotions, people calling her a hero and what not, there wasn't an unbuckling of the facts as much despite rachel mitchell's attempt in part because of her slow pace. we saw it ramp up in the second half with the meat being unpackaged for the american public as we've been watching that. again in the first half. it was an entirely different proceeding. >> you know, emily, and the question is what does this mean for nomination hearings going forward, if this will set the standard and change nomination proceedings going forward.

in other words, you interrupt proceedings by always interrupting the ranking member on either side with questions constantly. you have your eye on spartacus moments. you tacitly wink-wink allow protesters in and drop bombshells without allowing for a bipartisan, confidential, private investigation of the details of the allegations. so it's interesting because they really went after senator durbin, he said did you ever ask for an fbi investigation, and senator grassley said you yourself could have asked for an fbi investigation at any time. that is news. that's information. you can speak to that? >> i wholeheartedly agree, and senator graham spoke to it as well. he was clearly upset at the debacle that the process devolved into. i made that point earlier on twitter. i basically said no matter what party affiliation you have. no matter what credibility your belief is invested more in of

these two, every single person should be dismayed and ashamed at the debacle that procedure devolved into, in a macro, and microsense. in that procedurally at every point there were things coming out of the proverbial woodworks that disrupted the entire process, and what as the american public were we to rely upon that our elected officials would adhere to some type of process that would afford all parties the benefit of the doubt and that would afford the supreme court the honor and the sanctity it deserves. at what point was there going to be an end? on the microsense, what you pointed out, interrupting, the spartacus moment, the theatrics does a disservice to those of us at home. >> emily, we see the senators entering the room. proceedings are about to start again. senator graham got very heat, he said you know what, judge kavanaugh, you tell sonia

sotomayor and elena kagan, i would have never done what they're doing to you. he's never seen anything like this in his career as a senator. you can talk about that? >> i said bravo, senator graham. i thought that was absolutely excellent and to me it honestly indicated probably the value stlakd actually been achieved earlier if they had not ceded time to rachel mitchell, he was impactful, totally persuasive and right on 100%. i applauded what senator graham was saying, which is just that aghast at what was devolved in front of their eyes and had absolutely demeaned this judge as well as the accuser, dr. ford, in terms of both of their credibility, both ernestness in the entire process and the rubric of confirmation hearings. >> senator grassley did reveal, he made news, he said there was a request to the white house to ask the fbi to go deeper into the background check, and

apparently the answer came back no. we know during the anita hill proceedings, emily, anita hill was interviewed by the fbi and two dozen other witnesses, that didn't happen here. if the fbi could have gotten statements and more information, there may have been more information to either support >> yes, absolutely. how-is enough. how much would satisfy on the left 23 minutes in, how much no matter. what. to me ai free with you -- agree with you, taking a step further. there is disgust with the entire process, anything frankly would have moved the needle. i think it remains moving forward when the vote is called, what happens there, certainly as i said earlier, i believe judge kavanaugh is absolutely, he is back. liz: i think we have hillary

vaughn standing by, more on the sec now charged tesla with fraud. the sec holding a news conference s hillary vaughn there? >> yes i am here. liz: give us an encapsulation because they're starting with the proceedings. what is going on with the sec charges? >> they're alleging elon musk purposely misled investors when he tweeted he had funding secured. that is simply not true. it caused significant market disruption and, i will talk back to you. liz: hillary, thank you so much. let's get back to the kavanaugh hearing. >> you're pretty came about drinking. the second thing is i was truly just trying to get to the bottom of the facts and the evidence, i again, believe we do that by opening up the fbi investigation and i would call it a background check instead of investigation. thank you. >> appreciate that. >> senator hatch. >> thank you, judge. welcome, we're happy to have you here. my friend from, i just like to say a few words.

my friend from arizona emphasized yesterday we have before us yesterday two human beings, dr. ford and judge kavanaugh. they deserve, each of you deserves to be treated fairly and respectfully. we tried to do that with dr. ford and i think we succeed. important that we treat judge kavanaugh fairly now. it remains to be seen how that works out. judge kavanaugh has been a federal judge for 12 years. he has been a great federal judge on the second highest court in the nation. he is earned a reputation for fairness and decency. his clerks love him. his students, he teaches in law school as well. his students love him. his colleagues love him. this man is not a monster, nor is he what has been represented here in these hearings. we're talking today about judge kavanaugh's conduct in high

school. even then, as a freshman in college i guess as well. serious allegations have been raised. if judge kavanaugh committed sexual assault, he should not serve on the supreme court. i think we would all agree with that. but the circus atmosphere that has been created since my democratic colleagues first leaked dr. ford's allegations to the media two weeks ago after sitting on them for six weeks, i might add has brought us the worst in our politics. it certainly has brought us no closer to the truth. anonymous letters with no name and no return address are being treated as national news. lawyers with facially implausible claims are driving the news cycle. i hate to say this, this is worse than robert bork and i didn't think it could get any worse than that. i. this is worse than clarence thomas. i didn't think it could get any

worse than that. this is national disgrace the way you're being treated. in the middle of it you will judge kavanaugh a man until two weeks ago was a pillar of the legal community. there has been no whisper of misconduct by him in the time he has been a judge. what we have are uncorroborated, unsubstantiated claims from his teenage years! claims that every alleged eyewitness has either denied or failed to corroborate. i did not mean to minimize the seriousness of the claims. yeah, they have been serious claims, but the search for truth has to involve more than bare assertions like dr. ford, judge kavanaugh deserves fair treatment. he was an immature high schooler. so were we all. he wrote or said stupid things sometimes does not make him a sexual predator. i understand the desire of my colleagues to tear down this man at any costs.

i do understand it. but let's at least be fair and look at the facts or absence thereof. guilt by association is wrong. immaturity does not equal criminality. a judge kavanaugh drank in high school or college does not make him guilty of every terrible thing that he recently been accused of. a lifetime of respect and equal treatment ought to mean something when assessing allegations that are flatly inconsistent with the course of a person's entire adult life. with those comments, judge, i would like to ask you a few questions. if i can, about how, if you can be assured in your answers, help me get through a bunch of them how this process unfolded. when did you first learn of dr. ford's al decisions -- allegations against you. >> week ago sunday, "washington post" story. >> that is amazing. did the ranking member raise these allegations in your

one-on-one meeting last month? >> she did not. >> did the ranking member raise them at your public hearing earlier this month? >> no. >> did the ranking member raise them at the closed session that followed the public hearing? >> she was not there. >> did the ranking member or any of her colleagues raise them in the 1300 written questions submitted to you following the hearing? >> no. >> when was the first time that the ranking member or her staff asked you about these allegations? >> today. >> when did you first hear of miss ramirez's allegations against you? >> in the last, in period since then, "the new yorker" story. >> did the ranking member or any of her colleagues or any of their staffs ask you about miss ramirez's allegations before they were leaked to the press? >> no. >> when was the first time that the ranking member or any of her colleagues or any of their staff asked you about miss ramirez's

allegations? >> today. >> i think it's a disgrace. >> senator coons. >> thank you, mr. chairman. judge kavanaugh, today's hearing is about dr. ford's serious allegations about sexual assault. you have unequivocally denied those claims. but we're here today to assess her credibility and yours. and in our previous vigorous exchanges and previous confirmation hearing rounds i found that your answers at times vigorously defended but at other times struck me as evasive or not credible on key issues. it is against that backdrop that i'm seeking to assess your credibility today. you said in your opening that rule of law means taking allegations seriously. and i agree with that. it brings me no joy to question you on these topics today but i think they are serious and i think they are worthy of our attention. so let me, if i can, return to a line of questioning my colleague was on before. which was about whether you have

ever gotten aggressive while drinking or forgotten an evening after drinking. >> those are two different questions. i already answered the second one. as to the first, i think the answer to that is basically no. i don't know really what you mean by that, like, what are you talking about? >> well -- i mean, i don't mean it that way but, no, is basic answer unless you're talking about something where, i'm not aware of that you're going to ask about? >> the reason i'm asking, we've had very brief period of time to weigh outside evidence and i will join my colleagues in saying i wish we had more evidence in front of us today to weigh. do you remember liz swisher, a college classmate of yours from yale? >> first on your point about the outside evidence, all four witnesses said -- >> i'm trying to get to this

question? >> you made a point i want to emphasize. all four witnesses who allegedly at the event have said it didn't happen, including dr. ford's long-time friend miss keyser. >> mark judge were in front of us today to we would be able to assess his credibility. let me but the get through this can, in your honor. >> liz swisher is college classmate, now a doctor, quoting from recent interview. she said brett kavanaugh drank more than a lot of people. he would end up slurring his words, stumbling. it is not credible for him to say he has had no memory lapses in the united states he drank to excess. i know because i drank with him. how should we assess that? >> she then goes on, if you kept reading and says, she actually can't to point to any specific instance like that. >> the quote that jump out at me, bret was a sloppy drunk and i drank with him. >> i do not think that is a fair

characterization and, chris dudley is quoted in that article and, i would refer you to what chris dudley said. i spent more time in chris dudley in college than just about anyone. and i would refer you to what he said. >> in other reporting, i'm sure you know, a college classmate described you as relatively shy but said when you drank you could be aggressive or even belligerent. your roommate as i think you discussed miss klobuchar said you were frequently drunk. >> that was freshman year roommate, there was contention between him and third person. three of us in a small room. you should look what i said in the redacted portion of the transcript about him and, you should assess his credibility with that in mind. >> put yourself in our shoes, for a moment, if you would, judge, that is asking a lot of you in this setting, suppose you had gone through a process to select someone for incredibly important job in a position. you had a lot of qualify

candidates and as you're finishing the hiring process you learn of a credible allegation if true would be disqualifying. wouldn't you either take a step back and conduct a thorough investigation or move to a different candidate? and why not agree to a one week pause to allow the fbi to investigate all these allegations and allow an opportunity a week from now to have the folks present in front of us for us to assess their credibility and for to us either clear your name or resolve these allegations by moving to a different nominee? >> all four witnesses who aled to be at the event said it didn't happen. including dr. ford's long-time friend miss keyser who said she didn't know me and that she does not recall ever being at a party with me with or without dr. ford. >> what i struggled with, judge kavanaugh, is absence of fair, federal law enforcement driven, non-partisan process to question the various people who i think

are critical to this. my concern, should you move forward is what it will do to the credibility of the court and how that may well hang over your service. i understand. >> senator, my reputation has been -- >> calling for fbi investigation for one week. when you clear or confirm some of these allegations. >> [inaudible] >> when you say a week delay, you know how long the last 10 days have been for us? >> probably an eternity. >> in judge thomas confirmation a four-day delay. >> every day, it has been a lifetime. and you know, yeah, and it has been investigated. all four witnesses say it didn't happen. and they have said it under penalty of felony and i have produced my calendars which show you know, a lot, that is important evidence. and, you act like, last 10 days, i asked for a hearing the day

after the allegation. >> before i call on senator lee, i want to emphasize something here. that talking about doing something without enough time. we had 45 days between july 30th and september the 13th, i believe it is. when we could have been investigating this. and in regard to this candidate, if you take the average of 65 to 70 days between the time that a person announced by the president, and the senate votes on it, is about 65 to 70 days. here we are at about 85 to 90 days. so there is plenty of time put in on this nomination. senator lee. no, wait a minute. i got one other thing i want to do. everybody else is putting letters in the record. i have a letter here from 65

women, who knew judge kavanaugh between the years9 -- 79 and 83. the years he attended georgetown prep high school. they wrote to the committee and they know judge kavanaugh and know the allegations by doctor ford are totally inconsistent with his character. they know him through social events and church. many remained close friend with him. here is what they say, partly quoting the letter. quote, through the more than 35 years we've known him, bret has stood out for his friendship, character and integrity. he has always treated women with decency and respect. that was true in high school and it remains true to do this day. in closing they wrote, judge kavanaugh, quote, has always been a good person. so without objection i put it in the record. senator lee. >> judge kavanaugh, you have been cooperative at every stage of this investigation both your background investigation and the investigation conducted by this committee s that correct.

>> that's correct, sir. >> also correct you yourself do not control the fbi or when it conducts an investigation? you are a nominee. you're not tasked with the job of deciding who, when, whether, or how conduct as investigation? >> that's correct. >> but at every moment when either we or prior to the committee taking jurisdiction over at the fbi has asked you questions, you have been attentive and you have been responsive, isn't that right? >> that's correct. throughout my career. >> i have colleagues today who have repeatedly asked for an fbi investigation. and, there are some ironies in this. ironyies that ascend at at least two levels. in the first place, at least one of my colleagues, at least one of them had access to this information many, many weeks before anyone else did. had the ability and i believe the moral duty and obligation to report those facts to the fbi at which point they could have and would have been investigated by the fbi. and that could have been handled in such a way that didn't turn

this into circus. one that has turned your life upside down and that of your family and the life of dr. ford and her family upside down. i consider this most unfortunate given that this was entirely within the control of at least one of my democratic colleagues to do this. the second level of irony here, while calling repeatedly for an investigation by the fbi, an investigation overwhich you have no ability to control by the way, an investigation you have no authority to call for, while calling for an investigation, we're in the middle after conversation that involves questions to you. so i ask my democratic colleagues, if you have questions for judge kavanaugh ask him. he is right here. if that is really what you want, ask him questions right now. if you have questions of other witnesses, then for the love of all that is sacred and holy participate in the committee investigations going on as you have not been participating, with the committee staff investigating outside witnesses. if someone really were interested in the truth this is

what they would do. they would participate in the investigation and when we have a committee investigation, a committee hearing with live witnesses, they would talk about that, rather than something else they wish they were having in front of them. if what they want is a search for the truth, then now is their choice. if on other hand what they want to do is delay it until after the election at least one of my colleagues on the democratic side has acknowledged, that might be what they would do. finally want to point out there is significant precedent from our former chairman of this committee, chairman joe biden. during the clarence thomas hearings, nearly three decades ago, chairman biden made interesting observations about fbi reports and their role in this process. he said quote, the next person who refers to an fbi report worth anything obviously doesn't understand anything. the fbi explicitly does not in

this or any other case reach a conclusion, period, period. these are his dual period. not mine. i continue the quote, the reason why we cannot rely on the fbi report, you would not like it if we did because it is incon cues sieve. so when people wave an fbi report before you they do not, they do not reach conclusions. they do not make as my friend points out more accurately, they do not make recommendations. the role of the fbi is to flag issues. those issues were flagged. sadly in this case they were not flagged as she should have beens in the timing they should have been, in the manner would preserve a lot more dignity for you, dr. ford and your family. they were instead held out until the final moment. i consider that most unfortunate. and for that, on behalf of this committee, i extend to you my

most profound sympathies and my most profund sympathies to dr. ford and her family as well. >> mr. chairman? >> since we don't have enough slots for anyone can i have the last minute of senator lee so senator kennedy can be recognized? judge we did 38 hours in public with you. did we have any private hearings with you? >> yes. was. >> was that a fun time for you, senators could ask questions that were awkward or uncomfortable about potential alcoholism, gambling addiction, credit card debt if your mon guys floated money to buy baseball tickets did you enjoy that time? >> i'm always happy to cooperate with the committee. >> that's charitable. were you ever asked about any sexual allegations when we had the time with you alone? >> no. >> did the ranking member already have these allegations for this would have been september 6 or 7, and letter was written on july 30th, a,

recommendation was made by the ranking member or her staff to doctor ford. by the way i think think i dr. ford has been a victim and she has been through hell i'm sympathetic to her but did ranking member staff and hired a lawyer, knew all of that, we had a hearing with you none of these things were asked. once the process was closed. once the fbi investigation was closed. once we were done meeting in public and private this was sprung on you. i want to make sure we have the dates correct? we have 35 plus days from all the time this evidence was in the hands, recommendations were made to an outside lawyer, you could have handled all this in private in a way that didn't, not only do crap to his family -- i yield my time. >> [inaudible] >> to see if he could do math about 35 days, that was a little

bit after question. >> thanks, mr. chairman. good afternoon, judge kavanaugh. as a federal judge you're aware of the jury instruction falls in, falsis -- omnulus you're not? you're aware of that jury instruction? >> i am. >> you know what it means. >> you can translate for me, senator. >> false in one thing, false in everything. meaning in jury instructions that we some of us as prosecutors heard many times is told a jury that they can disbelieve a witness if they find him to be false in one thing. so, the core of why we're here today really is credibility. let me talk -- >> the core of why we're here is an allegation which the four witnesses present all said it

didn't happen. >> let me ask you about renatta dolphin who lives in connecticut. she thought these yearbook statements were horrible, hurtful, simi untrue, end quote, because renatti alumni clearly boasted sexual conquests that is the reason you apologized to her, right. >> speaking about your book and she and i said had never had any sexual interaction. your question is false. i addressed that in the opening statement and so your question is based on a false premise and really does great harm to her. i don't know why you're bringing this up, frankly. doing great harm to here by even bringing her name up here is really unfortunate. >> well, calling someone and a alumnus in that way -- >> implying what you're -- >> by a number of your football

friends at the time as boasting of sexual conquest. that is the reason i'm bringing it up. >> it is false. you're implying that. look what you're bringing up right now about her? look what you're doing? >> i'm ask. >> don't bring her name up. >> that his, subtracted from my time. >> she is a great person. she has always been a great person. we never had any sexual interaction. by bringing this up you're just dragging her through the mud. it is just unnecessary. >> [inaudible] >> thank you, mr. chairman. you made reference, judge, to a sworn statement i believe by mark judge, to the committee, is that correct? >> i made reference to what mark judge's lawyer sent to the committee. >> it is not a sworn statement, is it? >> under penalty of felony? >> well it's a statement signed

by his lawyer barbara van gelder. it is six cursory and conclusory sentences. are you saying that is a substitute for an investigation by the fbi or some interview by the fbi under oath. >> under personality of felony he said this kind of event didn't happen and i never did or would have done something like that. >> as a federal judge you always want the best evidence, don't you? >> senator, he has said, all the witnesses present. look at miss keyser's statement, she is -- >> let me move on to another topic. you testified to this committee, this morning, this afternoon, quote, this whole two week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about president trump and the 2016 election.

fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups. is it your testimony that the motivation of the courageous woman who sat where you did just a short time ago was revenge on behalf of a left-wing conspiracy or the clintons? >> senator, i said in my opening statement she preferred confidentiality. and her confidential at this was destroyed by the actions of this committee. let>> let me ask you this, in a speech that you gave, at yale, you, you described quote, falling out of the bus on to the front steps of the yale law school at 4:45 a.m.

>> i wasn't describing me. i organized, senator, let me finish here, please. i organized a third-year end of school party for 30 of my classmates to rent a bus to go to fenway park in boston. three-hour trip. i bought all the tickets. you and i discussed that before. i bought all the baseball tickets. i rented the bus. i organized the whole trip. we went to fenway park. roger clemons was pitching for the red sox. we had a great time. george brett was playing third base for the royals. actually playing left field that night. we went to the game and got back. went out. it was a great night of friendship. >> i apologize for interrupting, judge, i need to finish the quote before i ask you the question. >> i wasn't talking about drinking. >> the quote ends, that you tried to quote piece things back together end quote, to recall what happened that night.

meaning -- >> i know what happened. >> well you -- >> judge, quickly answer your question. i will let him answer. >> i know what happened that night. >> i will finish asking my question. >> go ahead but do it quickly. >> doesn't that imply to you that you had to piece things back together? you had to ask others what happened that night. >> okay you take your time now answer the question. then senator crapo. >> definitely not. i know exactly what happened that night. it was a great night of fun. i was so happy. great comradery. everyone looks back fonly on the trip to fenway park. a group of classmates i know exactly what happened. i'm epha -- >> judge, do you believe anita hill? >> senator crapo. senator crapo. >> thank you, mr. chairman. judge kavanaugh, first i want to get into this whole question that has been bandied back and forth here, almost endlessly today about the fbi

investigation process. because i think it is, i want to follow up a little bit what senator lee and senator sasse has referenced. there is a lot of talk about we need a fbi investigation. in these processes which you've been through a number of times now, when the fbi does a background check with regard to a nomination, could you quickly describe that for us? what does the fbi do? >> the fbi gathers statements from people who have information. they don't resolve credibility. they gather the information and the credibility determination is made by the ultimate fact-finder which in this case the united states senate. the committee of course hear is gathered evidence. >> the fbi then gives that report to the white house, if i understand it? and the white house then transfers it to the senate, is that? >> my understanding. >> and as you indicated it does not do, it has been said many times here today.

the fbi does not make judgments? it gives the senate committee information. at that point in time, if i understand the process correctly, the senate, the united states senate judiciary committee has legal authorities. if it receives information in an fbi report it wants to further investigate. the senate has legal authority to conduct further investigation, is that correct? >> that is my understanding. >> and, that is what has been referenced here many times about how some of these witnesses that were identified in the very late information that we received, have made statements that are under penalty of felony. that is a felony for lying to the senate judiciary committee, and as i understand it, what happens is, the senate judiciary committee which has authority under law to conduct those kinds of investigations follows up on the fbi reports to finish out it investigation that it wants with regard to any information that

it receives that need further investigation, is that your understanding of the process. >> that is my understanding, senator. >> now in this case there has been a lot of talk here today, >> in this case, there is a lot of concern by many that there was not so much an interests in an fbi investigation as there was delayas i understand it, ass we received the information, which was about 45 days after others on the committee received it. we conducted the investigation. mr. chairman, we began that legal senate judiciary investigation. >> yes. >> that involved our fully, lawfully enabled investigateors to conduct an investigation. and if i understand it

correctly, the democratic members of the committee refused to participate in that investigation. >> yes. >> we have conducted the investigation. the very things my colleagues are asking we tell the fbi to do, this committee has the authority to do it and this committee has done it. there may be more demands for more interviews and more investigation. but when you, judge kavanaugh referenced the testimony of those identified as being at this event, the testimony that has been received from them is information that has been received pursuant to a senate committee investigation. there has been a lot of back and forth, we are not getting information. you don't want to look into the investigation, you don't want to see what happened. this committee immediately and

thoroughly investigated every witness identified to us and we have statements under pen that of fell -- under penalty of felony on them. you had a meeting with senator feinstein august 20. >> i had a meeting and that's my understanding of the date. >> what was established earlier in testimony today was the ranking member staff helped dr. ford to retain the katz law firm sometime between july 30 and august 7. i just wanted to you clarify. in the meeting you had two weeks or more later, this issue was not raised with you. >> the issue was not raised. >> we'll take a 5-minute break now.