story that not even "the new york times" would report, the allegation of ms. ms. ramirez. and then stormy daniels' lawyer comes up with this incredible story, accusing you of the most sordid and salacious conduct. it's outrageous. and you are 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. the burden is not on you to disprove the allegations made. the burden, under our system, when you accuse someone 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 understood. 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. but your reputation is on the line. and i hope people understand the gravity of the charges made against you and what a fair process look like. >> senator klobuchar. >> thank you, mr. chairman. judge, we are talking here about decency and you understand we have this constitutional duty to advise and consent. 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 donald mcgahn 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 it. ask the president to reopen the investigation. >> i think the committee, you are doing the investigation. i'm here to answer questions. i should say something, senator klobuchar. i appreciate our meeting together. 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 we can talk to these witnesses and the fbi can do it instead of us. you 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. i think if we could open this up -- >> i don't mean to interrupt, but i guess i am. mark judge has provided sworn

statement saying this didn't happen and that i never did or would do. >> 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 don't president george bush in the anita hill-justice thomas case, he opened up the fbi investigation and let questions the asked. i think it was helpful for people. was his decision reasonable? >> i don't know the circumstances of that. what i know, senator. >> the circumstances are that he opened up the investigation so the fbi could ask some questions. he opened up the background check. >> i am here to answer questions about my yearbook or, you know, sports. >> i'm not going to ask about the yearbook. most people have done some drinking in high school and college.

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 are consequences. he is still an aa in age 90 and he is sober. 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 roommate say that you did drink frequently. these are in news reports, that you would sometimes be belligerent. another classmate said it's not credible for you to say you didn't have memory lapses. so drinking is one thing. >> actually don't think the second quote is correct. on the first quote, if you want, i've provided some 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 knee. it was a contentious situation where jamie did not like dave white. at all. dave white came back home one weekend and jenny roach had moved all his furniture out into the courtyard. so he walks in and so that's your source on that. >> drinking is one thing. >> there is more. look at the redacted portion of what i said and i want to repeat it -- i don't want to repeat it in a public hearing. >> drinking is one thing. the concern is about truthfulness. in your written testimony, he said sometimes you had too many drinks. was there ever a time that you drink 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 have probably had beers, senator . >> you are saying there's never been a case where you drink 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 has not happened, is that your answer? >> yeah and i'm curious if you have. >> i have no drinking problem, judge. >> nor do i. >> 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 from the white house, then the file is sent to the committee for us to

make our own evaluations. we are 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 is a month ago, clearly stating this matter is closed as far as the letter being sent to them. there is no federal crime to investigate. if senate democrats hope for the fbi to draw any conclusions on this matter, i'm going to remind you or joe biden said. i said this in my statement but may be, people aren't listening when i say, and 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 say he said-she said, they said, period. so when people waive an fbi report or even bring it up now," understand they do not, they do not, they do not reach conclusions. they do not make recommendations. senator hatch. >> mr. chairman. mr. chairman. may i say for the record that actually we have asked, you said no one has asked the fbi or we could ask the fbi, i actually have, i think others have and i think that the issue is the part of what an fbi report does is to investigate and seek either corroborating or exculpatory evidence. it's not so much the conclusion that it draws as the breadth of the evidence that is sought out through 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 lawyer, sent by his -- mr. judge's letter. i believe this is the first background investigation in the history of background investigations it hasn't been reopened when new credible information was raised about the subject, about the nominee. i didn't want to let the point stand without referencing what we have tried to do. >> part of me but i will add to the point you made, the letter was sent to the fbi. the fbi assented to the white house with a letter saying the case is closed. we are taking a break now. we are taking a break now. 15 minute break. >> bret: senate judiciary committee, a 15 minute break after what has been a fiery afternoon of questioning of judge brett kavanaugh.

clearly the moment this afternoon i got everybody's attention and probably for the entire was senator lindsey graham in an impassioned push calling this a sham process, saying that brett kavanaugh is going through hell. pointing to his colleagues on the democratic side saying i hope you never get this seat. i hope you're never in power. really emotional moment. after which, the questioning continued, senator shelby white house continued with questioning and went deep into brett kavanaugh's yearbook page. there was kind of a surreal back-and-forth about what different sentiments were typed on that page. it has been an amazing afternoon. and we will bring back the panel to comments. >> no matter what your politics or who you want to come out better in this process, you have to say the moment we watch from

lindsey graham is one of the most powerful moves we've seen on the senate floor in this kind of hearing. he was obviously enormously emotional and impassioned about what he was saying, and he feels that this entire process has been a sham. >> here's why i think it was so important. the republicans had continued with rachel mitchell, the sex crimes prosecutor from arizona who was going through very lawyerly, step-by-step, did you do this, did you do that. the democrats were playing hardball politics. you heard it from feinstein, to some degree senator leahy, senator durbin especially. finally, because this was becoming not a battle over facts about a battle over politics, lindsey graham came in. i don't know if it had been planned or not but he took his time back from rachel mitchell and he said you want to play politics? let's talk about what's going on here. this is the most disgraceful, political drama that were.

called out the extraordinary scene. this is a nomination, confirmation hearing for supreme court nominee and they are talking about a 17-year-old's yearbook. and what did the keg party need and what did renate alumnius mean. he called out the absurdity. the game the democrats are playing and i think he kind of called ds on them -- called b.s. on them. >> bret: let's take a listen on that from senator graham. >> if you wanted an fbi investigation, you could have come to us. what you want to do is destroy this guy's life, hold the seat open, and hope you win in 2020. you have said that, not me. you have got nothing to apologize for. when you see sotomayor and kagan telling them that lindsey graham

said oh, because i voted for this. i would never do to them what you have done to this guy. this is the most unethical sham since i have been in politics. and if you really wanted to know the truth, you sure as hell wouldn't have done what you have done to this guy. >> bret: he said any republican who votes against you now should be ashamed. >> that's pretty strong medicin medicine. since these things are witnessed by the people who tune them in, people have a knack to grind or their mind is made up, the question is what comes out of the hearing are that with the country sees news reports, the sound bites that will repeat in the days ahead. that is likely to be one of them. so is his emphatic denial and so was her emotional testimony that we all thought was so impressive in its own way as well. i think we are probably at the moment back to where we were before the hearing started. people who were inclined,

republican senators, if they were inclined to vote for this nominee, it looked for a while today as if her testimony seemed so heartfelt, that they might have turned away from him. i think the scales have been rebalanced. >> bret: there was an interesting exchange from senator durbin on the fbi. the senator says come back to the fbi. >> it's all these senators can do now, in the face of this indignant, emotional denial, is to come back and start talking about an fbi investigation. i think that's a good talking point. they had done well with it. but i don't think this fbi stuff is working at all. >> how powerful do you think lindsey graham's statement was in terms of those republicans who might be on the fence, as you said? he clearly called out this process in such a strong way. so many people over the recent weeks talking about how ugly they think all of this is. >> i suspect republicans across the country will react with cheers to it lindsey graham said, and it does to some extent

output republicans who may be on the fence on the spot. >> bret: here is the durbin exchange. >> we are going to abide by your wishes and we will have that investigation. >> i welcome whatever the committee wants to do because i am telling the truth. >> i want to know what you want to do. >> i am telling the truth. >> i want to know what you want to do. >> i'm innocent. i am innocent of this charge. >> you are prepared for an fbi investigation? >> they don't reach investigations. >> bret: it had a little feeling of "a few good men" there. you can't handle the truth. >> it's interesting, this continues to be the theme. he continues to say i will do whatever you want. there was also a moment where he said turned to don magana tell them right now to pause this entire thing, the chairman will understand. we can get the investigation and then he can come back. grassley, who was the chairman of this thing, he has presided over 14 different supreme court

confirmation hearings. he keeps taking back the dais and says i am running the show. any of you could have asked for the fbi investigation and you haven't, not in the way you could as a senator. as we keep talking about the republicans on the democrats on the senate committee have their own staffs. they can do their own investigations. that's what they do. that's part of the confirmation process. the republicans have tried to point the finger at the democrats saying we had interviews, phone calls, if they join the call, they have said nothing and done nothing or they didn't join us in these calls. so you have to know there are two very partisan sides to this. we will see if the fbi gets involved. >> it's worth remembering as has been pointed out several times today that there have been six fbi background checks of this individual where they were supposed to beat the bushes and make sure the anyone who had any problem with him had come forward and that they understood there was any issues. as has been said, to then say

let's give it to the fbi, who've never found anything on him before, is a bit of a question mark. the suggestion that he should call for an fbi investigation into himself i think is a little bit rich. >> he knows, as he said, they are not fact finders to come to a conclusion. this is not a judge and jury, and ultimate finding of fact. they gather the information, presented to the white house and say this is what you need to know about your nominee. these senators are smart. many of them educated lawyers and experienced prosecutors. they know the difference. >> i think he has gone too far on the anger side. i understand why he's angry. i feel for his family. i think that to me watching this, he seems very angry, very defensive. he keeps interrupting democratic senators. i know why he's doing it but he seems to have really made the decision strategically. he started with artisan comments in his opening statement. he's hitting partisan themes and that's a strategy. for me, it's hitting it very

angry. the one question that he could not answer definitively was whether he had ever drank so much that he blacked out or couldn't remember things. >> he answered it definitively. >> he answered it five times. >> he said amy klobuchar, have you ever. >> he said it repeatedly. >> he wavered on it and i think where democrats are going, where democrats are going to go i think is he may have done something that he doesn't remember. i will say that answer looked different than other ones he gave and the anger is really striking to me. really striking. >> you may consider it a strategy and maybe it is that it may be the reaction of somebody who has been wrongly accused and is furious about it and is furious about the entire way the whole thing was handled going back to august. could that not account for his anger? >> bret: i want to go to john roberts. earlier they were very happy with his opening statement. they have to be pretty happy with lindsey graham, i would think. >> very much so. sarah sanders tweeted about it, saying "lindsey graham has more decency encouraged in every democrat member of the committee

combined. god bless him." they also like that line of questioning of the yearbook from senator sheldon whitehouse. they believe the judge "minimized, made stupid the questions about the yearbook." when the issue of boofing he -- judge kavanaugh said we are talking about flatulence. that was a turning point as well. the president very happy with the way kavanaugh is comported himself at this point he thought his opening statement was very, very strong. the white house thinks that might've been a turning point as well. one official did tell me that since they enter the questioning and marie, i think you mentioned it, they think he is a little "hopped," at some point. maybe he needs to dial it back at some points but the president is very happy with the way things are going so far. >> bret: john roberts live on the north lawn. that was quite something, sheldon whitehouse.

flatulence, devils triangle, quarters. >> we are going to take a quick break and will be right back with more coverage. right after this. the craziest , the riskiest job. the consequences underwater can escalate quickly. the next thing i know, she swam off with the camera. it's like, hey, thats mine! i want to keep doing what i love. that's the retirement plan. with my annuity i know there's a guarantee. annuities can provide protected income for life. learn more at retireyourrisk.org

[ horn honking ] [ engine revving ] what's that, girl? [ engine revving ] flo needs help?! [ engine revving ] take me to her! ♪ coming, flo! why aren't we taking roads?! flo. [ horn honking ] -oh. you made it. do you have change for a dollar? -this was the emergency? [ engine revving ] yes, i was busy! -24-hour roadside assistance. from america's number-one motorcycle insurer. -you know, i think you're my best friend. you don't have to say i'm your best friend. that's okay.

>> bret: this is a fox news alert. the kavanaugh hearing continuing

in moments. we heard some fiery questioning from lindsey graham, from south carolina. democrats continuing their questioning, focusing a lot on the fbi investigation that has not happened. and what moves forward. do we have judge andrew napolitano in new york? we don't, actually. but he's really good. when we bring him in. shannon, what are we looking for from the rest of the democrats, mazie hirono, kamala harris, cory booker. those are people in the past who have been pretty aggressive and likely will be today. >> i think will be interesting to look at his reaction to them because these are people who are used to prosecuting cases. they have depth and experience of doing that. they've only got 5 minutes. it's a short time. not like the 20 or 30 minutes they had the traditional hearing. i think they're going to be looking to land punches as quickly and cleanly as i can. i think he is pretty fired up and pretty wound up in feeling very much-maligned and a sense of injustice about what's happened to him because of the committee. we will see.

i think it will be very combative continuing. >> i'm imagining something along that scenario of lindsey graham sliding a note to grassley and saying i want and have been just a short time ago. now i want to know if we are going to hear from ted cruz, mike lee, as everyone else going to feel unleashed and ready to jump in? >> bret: how about john kennedy from louisiana? he is a sound bite machine. >> another interesting moment, cory booker and his opening statement, judge kavanaugh talked about one member of this committee called me evil. that was cory booker of new jersey. that is one i am looking forward to watching the two of them go at it. i will say i picked up on what john roberts said. he has made his point. he has certainly shown righteous a new -- righteous indignationa man who's been unfairly and unjustly accused of something terrible. may be a need to dial it back. i am not saying he needs to play

rope a dope, but he made his point. >> saint to senator klobuchar, i'm thankful for the time we spent in your office. very respectful. i wonder if that's going through his head in terms of how he wants to approach the finish as he gets into, i don't know, another hour at least. >> i think that would be smart because think about the accusations, not just dr. ford, but the others that have come out. they all involve some sort of aggressive, being angry, especially when drunk, i think, again, i get why he's angry but it sort of reinforces the narrative when he has this hot that maybe there is an aggressive or angry side of him that maybe might come out when he drinks those beers he keeps talking about. i think he needs to end this much calmer, not interrupt democratic senators even though they are going to go after him. if he wants this job, he needs to find a way to calm down a little bit. >> bret: i don't know. there is all of this, he needs to be indignant. he needs to stand up and be

emotional. now he has done that now, and wait a second. hold on. he has to dial it back and be a judge again. which one is it? >> the standard model is that you absorb whatever the committee throws at you and you are deferential at all times. that can work. in a situation like this, it wasn't working so we turned the tables. i think it was the right thing to do and i think it was heartfelt. you could tell from the emotion that it doesn't just come out of nowhere. i don't know that -- it depends to me on how the senators react to him. they are polite and courteous as senator klobuchar was, seems to me that someone -- if we get a spartacus moment from senator booker, may be more of this and would appropriate. i think we had a very different place than we were at the end of the morning. >> bret: references to the first hearing in which he said it was his "i am spartacus" moment. he said when he delivered coffee, it was his "i am

starbucks" moment. i had to share that in the commercial. i credited you. >> you did. i very much appreciate it. it's been a long day. >> bret: it has been a long day. as we get ready to see the hearing resume, it is interesting to see how the rest of the people in the room have reacted to this. his wife is sitting right behind him. she has been pretty stoic throughout. you talk to her and she seems obviously affected. >> he said she is his rock, and i think that's true. looking at her and having sat across from them during our interview, she is a very steady person. and this clearly has taken a big toll on her but she's been unwavering in her -- i asked her, did you ever have a moment where you thought is a possible that my husband did these things. she said no, absolutely not, without missing a beat. she has definitely been a rock for him and she has seen this through. i asked, did you ever look at

each other and say, is this worth it? is all of this worth it, they also both in unison absolutely. we are not going down this way because with -- because we feel very strongly. >> started my last point by saying to senator klobuchar how much i respect her and respected what she did. she asked me a question and i responded by asking her a question. this is a tough process. >> when you have a parent that's alcoholic, you are pretty careful about drinking. the second thing is, i was truly just trying to get to the bottom of the facts and the evidence. again, i believe we do that by opening up the fbi investigation and i would call it a background check instead of investigation. >> appreciate that. >> senator hatch. >> welcome. we are happy to have you here. i would like to say a few words. my friend from arizona

emphasized yesterday that we have before us today to human beings, dr. ford, and judge kavanaugh. they deserve, each of you deserve to be treated fairly. and respectfully. tried to do that with dr. ford earlier and i think we succeeded. it's important that we treat judge kavanaugh fairly now. it remains to be seen how that's going to work out. judge kavanaugh has been a federal judge for 12 years, and he's been a great federal judge on the second highest court in the nation. he has earned a reputation for fairness and decency. his clerks love him. his students. he teaches in law school. 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 are talking today about judge kavanaugh's conduct in high school.

even then, and as a freshman in college, i guess, as well. serious allegations have been raised. if charge kavanaugh committed sexual assault, he should not serve on the supreme court. i think we would all agree with that. the circus atmosphere that's been created since my democratic colleagues first took 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 now being treated as national news. implausible claims are driving the new cycle. i hate to say this but this is worse than robert bork, and i didn't think you could get any worse than that. this is worse than clarence thomas. i didn't think it could get any worse than that.

this is a national disgrace, the way you're being treated. in the middle of it all, we have judge kavanaugh, a man who until two weeks ago was a pillar of the legal community. there has been no whisper of this conduct 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 do 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 assertion. judge kavanaugh deserves fair treatment. he was an immature high schoole high schooler. so are we altered that 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 cost. i do understand it.

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

>> she did not. >> did the ranking member racemic your public hearing? >> no. >> do the ranking member racemic 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 that were 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 ms. ramirez's allegations against you? >> in the last -- in the period since then. the new yorker story. >> to the ranking member or any of her colleagues or any of their staffs asking about them -- ask about the ramirez allegations before they relate to the press questioning >> no. >> on was the first time that the ranking member or her colleagues or their staffs asked

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

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

i just want to emphasize all four witnesses who were allegedly at the event have said it didn't happen, including dr. ford's longtime friend, ms. keyser. >> if mark judge were in front of us today, we would be able to assess his credibility. let me just get through this if i can, your honor. liz swisher is a college classmate. she's a medical doctor. i am quoting from a recent interview she gave. she said "brett kavanaugh drink more than a lot of people. he would end up slurring his words, stumbling. it's not credible to say he had no memory lapses in the 19 drink to excess. i know because i drink with him." how should we assess that? >> she goes on and says she can't point to any specific instance like that. >> the quote that jumped out at me was "bret was a sloppy drunk and i know because i drink with him." >> i don't think that's a fair

characterization. chris dudley is quoted in that article. i would for you to what chris dudley said. i spent more time with chris dudley in college than just about anyone. i would refer you to what he said. >> in other reporting, college classmate described you as a relatively shy but said that when you drink, you could be aggressive or even belligerent. your roommate, as i think you discussed with, senator klobuchar, señor frequent lead drunk. >> that was freshman year roommate, and there was contention between him and me, third person. there were three of us in a small room and you should look at 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 come a judge. i know that is asking a lot of you in this setting. suppose you had gone through a process to select someone for an incredibly important job.

you had a lot of qualified candidates. as you are finishing the hiring process, you learn of a credible allegation that, 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 you an opportunity a week from now to have the folks present in front of us for us to assess their good ability and for us to either clear your name or resolve these allegations by moving to a different nominee. >> all four witnesses who were alleged to be at the event said it didn't happen. including dr. ford's longtime friend ms. keyser who said that 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 have struggled with, judge kavanaugh, is the absence of fair federal law enforcement driven, nonpartisan process to question the various people who i think are credible 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 an fbi investigation for one week. to clear or confirm some of these allegations. you say a week delay. do you know how long the last ten days have been for us? >> probably an eternity. in the judge thomas, a four day delay. >> every day been a lifetime. you know, yeah. it's been investigated. all four witnesses say didn't happen. they have said it under penalty of family -- under penalty of felony. it's important evidence. you act like, i mean, the last ten days, i asked for a hearing the day after the allegation.

>> before i call in senator lee, i want to emphasize something here. talking about doing something without enough time. we had 45 days between july 30 and september 13. 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 is announced by the president and the senate votes on it, it's about 65 to 70 days and here we are at about 85 to 90 days. plenty of time put in on this nomination, senator lee. wait a minute. i've got one other thing i want to do. everybody else has been putting letters in the record. i have a letter here from 65

women who knew judge kavanaugh between the years of '79 and '83, the years he attended georgetown prep high school. these women wrote to the committee because i know judge kavanaugh and they know that the allegations raised by dr. ford are completely, totally inconsistent with his character. these 65 women know him through social events and church. many of them have remained close friends with him. here's what they say, partly quoting the letter. "through the more than 35 years we have known him, brett 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 this day. in closing, they wrote judge kavanaugh has "always been a good person." without objection, i put it in the record. senator lee. >> judge kavanaugh have you ben cooperative at every stage, the background investigation in the investigation conducted by the committee. is that correct?

>> it's correct. >> and that you yourself do not control the fbi or what it conducts an investigation. you are a nominee. you are not tasked with the job of deciding who and whether or how conducts an investigation. >> that's correct. >> at every moment when either we or prior to the committee taking jurisdiction over it, the fbi has asked you questions, you've been attentive and you have been responsive. isn't that right? >> that is correct, throughout my career. >> i have colleagues to hoover repeatedly asked for an fbi investigation. there are some ironies in this. ironies that are 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 a 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 do this. the second level of irony here is that while calling repeatedly for an investigation by the fbi, an investigation over which you have no ability to control, and investigation you have no authority to call for, while calling for an investigation, we are in the middle of a conversation that involves questions to you. i asked my democratic colleagues if you have questions for judge kavanaugh, ask him. he is right here. if that's really what you want is the truth, asking 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 were really interested in the truth, this is

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

the conclusion." i continue to quote. "the reason why we cannot rely on the fbi report, you would not like it if we did because it's inconclusive. so when people waive an fbi report before you, understand they do not, they do not, do not reach conclusions. they do not make, as my friend points out more accurately, they do not make recommendations." in other words, the role of the guys to flag issues. in this case, they were flayed, not as they should have been, not in the timing in which they should've been. therefore they couldn't have been addressed in the memo that would've preserved a lot more dignity for you coming for your family, dr. ford and her family. they were instead held out until the final moment. i consider that most unfortunat unfortunate. for that, on behalf of this committee, i extend to you my most profound sympathies and my

most profound sympathies to dr. ford and her family as well. >> mr. chairman. since we don't have enough slots, can i have the last minute of senator lee. judge, we did 38 hours in public with you. did we have private hearings? >> yes. >> is not a fun time for you once and for us could ask questions that are awkward or uncomfortable about potential alcoholism, potential gambling addiction, credit card debt. if your buddies floated your money to buy baseball tickets. did you enjoy that time we spent? >> i am always happy to cooperate with the committee. >> that's charitable. were you ever asked about any allegations when we had that time with you you alone? >> did the ranking member already have these allegations, i guess this would've been september 6 or 7 in the letter was written july 30.

a recommendation was made by the ranking member or staff to dr. ford. i think dr. ford is a victim and i think she's been through hell i am very sympathetic to her. but did the ranking members of staff here today make a recommendation to hire a lawyer and she knew all that and it we had a hearing here with you and none of these things were asked. but then once the process was close, once the fbi investigation was closed, once we were done meeting in public and private, this was thrown on you. i want to make sure i have the dates correct. we got 35-plus days from all the time that this evidence was in the hands. recommendations were made to an outside lawyer. you could have handled all of this and we could've had this conversation in private in the way they didn't not only do crap to his family. i yield my time. see if he could do math about 35 days. that was a little bit of a

question. >> thanks, mr. chairman. good afternoon, judge kavanaugh. as a federal judge, you are aware of the jury instruction. you are aware of that jury instruction. you know what it means. >> you can translated me. you can do it better than me. >> false and one thing, false and everything. in jury instructions, that we, some of us as prosecutor serve, we tell the jury that they can disbelieve a witness if they find him to be false in one thing. so the core of why we are here today really is credibility. >> the core of why we are here is an allegation for which the

four witnesses present said it didn't happen. >> let me ask you about renate dolphin who lives in connecticut. she thought these yearbook statements were "horrible, hurtful, and simply untrue." because renate alumni clearly implied some boast of sexual conquest, and that's the reason you apologized to her, correct? >> it's false, speaking about the yearbook. she said that she and i never had any sexual interaction. your question is false and i trusted in the opening statement. 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. you are doing great harm to her by bringing her name appear. it's really unfortunate. >> well, calling someone an alumnus in that way -- >> implying what you are implying.

>> by a member of your football -- your football friends at the time of boasting of sexual conquest. >> what you are bringing up right now. look what you're doing. don't bring her name up. >> ask your question. >> she has a great person. she has always been a great person. we never had any sexual interaction. you are dragging her through the mud. it's unnecessary. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> you have 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 said to the committee. >> it's not a sworn statement, is it? >> under penalty of felony. >> it's a statement signed by

his lawyer, barbara van gelder. it's six cursory and conclusory sentences. are you saying that that's a substitute for an investigation? by the fbi? or some interview by the fbi under oath? >> under penalty of felony, he said was kind of event didn't happen and that i never did or would have done something like that. >> is a federal judge, you always want the best evidence, don't you? >> senator, he has said and all the witnesses present. look at ms. keyser statement. >> let me move on to another topic. you have testified to this committee this morning, this afternoon, "this whole two-week effort has been 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 after being 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 that she preferred confidentiality. her confidentiality was destroyed by the actions of this committee. >> let me ask you this. in a speech you gave at yale, you described "falling out of the bus onto the front steps of the yale law school at 4:45

and --" >> i wasn't describing me. senator, let me finish your 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 which was about a three hour trip. i bought all the tickets. you and i have discussed that before. i bought all the baseball tickets. i rented the boss. i organized the whole trip. we went to fenway park. roger clemens was pitching for the red sox. we had a great time. george bret was playing third base for the royals. actually was playing left field. and we went to the game and got back and then we 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 -- >> the quote ends that you try to "piece things back together" to recall what happened that

night. meaning -- >> i know what happened. >> judge, will you quickly answer the question i'm going to answer. >> i know what happened that night. >> i'll finish asking my question. >> go ahead. 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 and answer the question. >> definitely not. i know exactly what happened that night. it was a great night of fun. i'm so happy, great camaraderie. everyone looks back fondly on the trip to fenway park. and then we went out together, a group of classmates. i know exactly what happened the whole night. >> judge, do you believe anita hill. >> senator . senator. >> thank you, mr. chairman. judge kavanaugh, i want to get into this whole question that's been bandied back and forth here almost endlessly today about the fbi investigation process.

because i think -- i want to follow up a little bit on what senator lee and senator sasse have reference. there's been a lot of talk here about, we need an 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 it 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 is the united states senate. the committee hears 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. >> that's my understanding. >> and as you indicated, it does not, as been has said many

times, the fbi does not make judgments. it gives a senate committee information. at that point in time, if i understand the process correctly, the united states senate judiciary committee has legal authorities if it receives information in the fbi reported that it wants to further investigate, the senate has legal authority to conduct further investigation. is that correct? because that is my understanding. >> that's what's 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's a felony for lying to the senate judiciary committee. and as, 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 the investigation that it wants with regard to any information that

it receives that needs further investigation. is that your understanding of the process? >> that is my understanding, senator. >> in this case, there's been a lot of talk here today and if i have time i will get into it. in this case, there's a lot of concerned by many that there was not so much an interest in an fbi investigation is there was in delay. i'm not going to get to that unless i have time. i want to talk about what happened in the senate committees investigation. because as i understand it, and this may be more of a question to the chairman, as soon as we received information which was about 45 days after others on the committee received it, we conducted an investigation. is that correct, mr. chairman? sorry to turn the questioning to you but we began that legal senate judiciary committee investigation. >> yes. >> that investigation aloud are fully enabled lawful investigators to conduct the investigation and if i

understand it correctly, the democratic members of the committee refused to participate in the investigation. >> yes. >> and so we have conducted the investigation, the very kinds of things that my colleagues on the other side are asking that we tell the fbi to do. this committee has the authority to do it, and disk committee has done it. there may be more demands for more interviews and more investigation but when you will, judge kavanaugh, i have reference to the testimony from those who were 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. i think it should be made clear. i think there's been a lot of back-and-forth here about, not getting information, you don't want to look into the investigation and you don't want to see what happened, but this committee thoroughly investigated every witness that

was identified to us and we have statements under penalty of felony from them. i have 45 seconds left so i will ask you one quick question on timing. you had a meeting with senator feinstein on august 20th? >> i had a meeting and that's my understanding of the date. >> what was established with testimony earlier today was that the ranking member staff helped dr. ford to retain the caps law firm on -- sometime between jul. so i just wanted you to clarify one more time. in the meeting that you had two weeks or more later, this issue was not raised with you? >> judge kavanaugh: the issue was not raised. >> thank you, my time is up. >> we will take a five minute break now. >> bret: the break here for the senate judiciary committee, the questioning