sensational by the client of mr. michael avenatti, the extraordinary claim, which apparently are democratic colleagues are embarrassed to say publicly because they demonstrate that this has become a partisan this is about smears. >> and i at the summit, asked senator if he can sum up, the reason i have done that is i like to give everybody a chance to speak. >> this committee has given dr. ford and judge kavanaugh full and fair opportunity to lay out their views. and i will say unfortunately, the conduct of our democratic colleagues, it's been clear that this has been all about politics, all about delaying this confirmation until after the election hoping that they win the senate in the election and then keeping the supreme court seat vacant until

2021. every democratic member of this committee before the confirmation hearing started said they opposed judge kavanaugh, before a single thing started. and not only that, this allegation, the ranking member of this committee had it in writing on july 30th. if on july 30th that had been reported to the committee chairman, this committee has a process to investigate it, a process to investigate it that is confidential, that the fbi could've participated in investigating starting back on july 30th. that we could've had a hearing lead is closed, that is not dragging either of these individuals through the mud. that's the way this process should work. the testimony yesterday from dr. ford is the only people who have copies of the letter were herself, her lawyers, and the ranking member of this committe committee. dr. ford further testified that she nor her lawyers handed the letter over.

that leaves the only conclusion possible as of the letter was leaked to the public by either of the two democratic members of congress or their staff or someone else to whom they gave it. if there were only four people who haven't and two did not give it, than the other two are the only possible sources. and that unfortunately demonstrates the cynicism, a to smear dr. ford if it helps politically delay this nomination. i think we have an obligation to be fair, to be impartial, to listen to the evidence, to weigh the evidence. that's the right thing to do and that's what i hope this committee does and that's what i hope the whole senate does. >> senator . >> thank you, mr. chairman. yesterday was an important and a difficult day, a long day for dr. ford, for judge kavanaugh,

for the senate judiciary committee, for our nation. and i was a briefly at the outset that before yesterday began, i prayed. i prayed for dr. ford and her family, i prayed for judge kavanaugh. i prayed for our chairman and ranking member. i prayed for president. i prayed for all who would watch yesterday who were victims of sexual assault and i prayed for all who would watch yesterday on certain whether we could conduct ourselves respectfully. and i might say after everything that i've heard, i am struck that in the twitter fueled smash mouth politics of our day, we must ask ourselves what about our conduct, what about our conduct here would encourage anyone to come forward with credible allegations of sexual assault to seek a nomination to a federal court or other position of trust were to serve here? as a result, i tonight will pray

for our nation. the burden on this committee was to address, investigate, and resolve reasonable doubt of allegations against the nominee before them. and by that test, the committee has failed. i know we have heard strong words about many of our colleagues. in my predecessor, long serving senator and former chairman of this committee joe biden has been quoted by many and i would say misquoted at times, but i want to share one quote, one thing he said to me when i began my service here which is that it's always appropriate to question another senator's policies, it is always appropriate to question another senator's priorities emma but it is never appropriate to question another senator's motives. and there has been far too much of that that has happened in this process. in a way that frankly will make it very difficult for us to take

off our partisan jerseys and at some point get back to the important work on finding solutions to the real challenges facing this country. what i have been searching for in this process is the fax. and i realize many of my colleagues on the other side do not see it that way. many questioned the timing of when this allegation surfaced and also said there are not enough facts corroborating dr. ford testimony to ruin a good man. i strongly disagree with both of these points and want to explain briefly why. the first time i learned of dr. ford's allegations that judge kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her was on september 12th. ranking member feinstein disclose this highly sensitive information to myself and other democrats on this committee only after reporters had learned of the letter dr. ford had provided her congresswoman. i don't know how this information leaks. i regret that it did. the decision whether to come forward should have been

dr. ford's and dr. ford's alone. and i cannot rule out the person who leaked this information had a partisan agenda but i am certain ranking member feinstein and her staff did not disclose dr. ford's account prior to that date because it was not theirs to share and i think it is regrettable that long serving honorable colleagues of hers have questioned her motives. i know since the day that my democratic colleagues and i learned of these allegations, we have had one consistent request to allow the fbi to investigate them in a nonpartisan professional evenhanded manner and deliver their findings to us so that we could reach a conclusion. that same night, ranking member feinstein sent a letter requesting such an investigation. to suggest that senate staff interviews or letters from lawyers are in adequate substitute for a robust fbi fact gathering process is not credible and reflects sadly

willful blindness to the dysfunction of our institution. to my colleagues across the aisle, you know me. even with those who we passionately disagree. if i were convinces for nothing more than a partisan hit job designed to take a good man and hold it make it past the election, i would not stand for it. investigation would be helpful because the recollection shared with us a powerful yesterday receiving but incomplete. dr. ford testified credibly but the painful memory she carried with her to this day, the feeling of hand clasped over her mouth and her not being able to breathe, the sound of laughter while she was pinned on a bed, the weight of a body on top of hers groping her and the feeling of relief leaving the house.

she felt with 100% certainty that the person who assaulted her was brett kavanaugh whom she knew through multiple acquaintances and had socialized with on multiple occasions. but it is true as has been widely repeated that dr. ford cannot pinpoint the date for the time of the assault exact location and that she did not tell anyone about that assault at that time. there is not an eyewitness who has been able to provide the details of this. all of which is typical of sexual assault. many experts have written how common it is for them to remember some facts with searing clarity but not others which has to do with a survival mode that turns on when we experience trauma. the vast majority of sexual assault victims delay disclosing what happened to them or never disclose it at all. one of the most striking things about this hearing for me has been the so far five personal friends, acquaintances, people have known for years or decades who have conveyed to me their

experiences a sexual assault on this phone while this testimony was going on. there is an ocean of pain in this nation not yet fully heard coming not yet fully addressed, not yet appropriately resolved. and i, for one, will not countenance the refrain said by too many in response to these allegations by dr. ford that happened to long ago and that our nation boys will be boys. we must do better than that. if we must set a better standard than that for our own families and for our future. i worry sincerely about the message we are sending to assault survivors if we plow ahead with his nomination despite the seriousness of the allegations. and i have conveyed to my friends and colleagues that i have wished we would take a one-week pause. one week only. not to spread this out past the next election, not to pursue some partisan goal, but to allow

professional fbi interview with everyone who may have relevant information starting with mark judge who obviously given the vote of this committee this morning will not be subpoenaed to appear before us. i will remind you briefly that many of those who came forward to support judge kavanaugh including my own professor from yale law school and organization of long belong to, the american bar association have spoken up to also request a thorough and professional background investigation. i think to ask for a week is not to ask for too much. when professor anita hill came forward, the white house cooperated and in four days, a hearing was put together with 22 witnesses. i think that's what dr. ford deserves, i think that's what her bravery deserves, and i think that's what our nation deserves. i will not go through a long point by point reputation of what we've just heard from some

of my colleagues let me simply say a few things about dr. ford's testimony. as i've said, she bore the pain of this attack alone for far too long, but her memories did not stay hers alone. dr. ford told her now husband in 2002, she told therapist in 2012 and 2013, she told friends in 2013, 2016, 2017, 2018, and has submitted testimony about all of that this committee. dr. ford when she came forward yesterday had nothing to gain and a lot to lose. she came forward to testify about her experience of assault and am going to use her words, she said i'm here today not because i want to be. i am terrified. i'm here because i believe it is my civic duty to tell you what happened to me while brett kavanaugh and i were in high school. civic duty. to tell the truth. what has always struck me is that dr. ford came forward to

voice concerns about judge kavanaugh before he was nominated. she reached out to her congresswoman anonymously to "the washington post" tip line as well when judge kavanaugh's name was on the short list, she was not lying in wait for an opportune time to make a big reveal to sink the nominee, rather she had wanted this information before he made a selection to the president could pick someone else. i wish he had. judge kavanaugh yesterday unequivocally denied the allegations against him. but something he said repeatedly importantly was not accurate. over and over again, he testified and we just heard it repeated here today that dr. ford's account was refuted by three individuals dr. ford identified as being present. that's not the case and judge kavanaugh knows it. not recalling is not the same as refuting. their statements issued through lawyers say they don't remember the gathering.

of course, none of these three people were assaulted that night. for two of them, it would've been an unremarkable evening, just another casual summer among friends and we lynn kaiser says that she believes dr. ford's accounts, a fact not acknowledged by my colleagues or judge kavanaugh. i'll also say that in my view, the failure of this committee to subpoena mark judge whom dr. ford identified as a witness and participate in her attack is a failure in this committee's effort to get to the truth. we also have to face the reality, there are additional serious allegations brought in sworn statements by ms. ramirez who have both asked for an fbi investigation into their claims. their claims have varying credibility that deserve to be heard. i wish judge kavanaugh would have pointedly supported a short pause for an fbi investigation for the benefit of clearing his own name. but i will say as i conclude there is something much greater

in my mind at stake. the fact that judge kavanaugh is nominated to the supreme court means this is not just about his credibility and the remaining concerns about his credibility that i will carry forward. it's about the courts legitimac legitimacy. we are left with the reality that if his nomination goes forward this morning after testimony full of range and partisanship and vitriol and without even a brief pause for a nonpartisan investigation into the serious allegations presented, his service may well have an asterisk. litigants to come to the court will have reason to question the fairness of the institution and in my idea, that is too much to impose on our system of justice in exchange for any one man. it is my hope that my colleagues, those who have not yet decided or declared the decision was still joint in a request to allow the fbi to do its important work and for this committee to allow itself the time to get to the bottom of the remaining allegations.

given the vote this morning, i know that it's highly unlikely. i initially announced my opposition to judge kavanaugh after a previous round of hearings have concluded. those hearings began without a declared position by many of my colleagues on the side. in the end, for me, it was judge kavanaugh's extreme views on presidential power that i engage with him vigorously on that i believe i engage with him respectfully on the determine my vote on him. but for us to proceed today without giving a thoughtful serious and thorough investigation of credible allegations before us is for this committee to fail to do its job. i pray that after today and that we may yet find a way to work together because our community, our country, and our world deserves no less. thank you. >> i'm going to ask my colleagues on the side of the aisle, and i'm not going to ask the democrats to do this, but could we kind of -- i've only

interrupted senator, could we make sure that we keep our remarks little short so everybody can speak? okay. i guess i'm wrong. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just wanted to respond first to a number of the comments that have been made about again the fbi investigation and what the dynamic of what this committee has done is, it's been said this committee has changed its procedures for the first time that is conducted its business in this way. again, as i said yesterday, i think that needs to be clarified and corrected. the fact is that when the fbi does its background investigation, it does just that, a background investigation. he talks to people who may have

information about the nominee and it takes a statement from them and then delivers its package of investigation information to the white house which passes it on to the committee which is the report this committee receives from the fbi. it's been said that president bush reopen the fbi investigation when we need a hill investigation came out. my understanding is that if i'm wrong on this mr. chairman, please correct me but my understanding is when you as the chairman finally found out about the information that that information also went to the fbi, perhaps the ranking member who gave the information some of the letter to the fbi but the fbi was given the information. is that correct? >> that is correct. said to the white house and the usual way they do that they considered it closed.

>> the full letter unredacted was given to the fbi and the fbi did what it does evaluate the letter, and then again i understand that the fbi then closed it and sent the information to the white house before this allegation came up, is that correct? >> the only thing i can verify is the fbi did what they would usually do and that i don't know what that was, and they probably would keep their own internal stuff to themselves, but they sent a cover letter to the white house saying the issue was closed. >> so the fbi did look at this and did whatever it does in its background check activities and

then resent an updated amount of information to the white house which the white house then forwarded to us in the process which is traditionally been followed in this committee was followed again. and i believe that immediately, the chairman opened up an investigation by this committee. that also is customary practice and as has been stated yesterday but i will restate again, our committee investigative staff which is extensive and well trained has legal authorities similar to the ties the fbi agents do such that when they conduct their investigations, the people who are interviewed and those who are reached out to by the committee are -- if they don't respond honestly and correctly to the questions. any one of the witnesses who was

identified has been reached out to you. some comments have been a didn't actually submit themselves to a deposition or to some kind of a court process or something like that. that's were very well explained by some of our other colleagues. when a witness refuses to testify, the alternative is to try to get a statement from them which the fbi does or the committee does and in this case, statements under penalty of penalty were obtained from all of the witnesses. i think the argument here that there was some process followed that was not fair is simply inaccurate. the argument that the process followed was not the same they have followed in the past has also been inaccurate. to turn to the issue at hand, yesterday we received hours and hours of testimony from two witnesses and both of them

frankly made very strong cases. this committee is under the need to evaluate the testimony that was given and determine how it will judge for rule on the obligation this committee has to give advice and consent. in that context, i came away believing that there had in fact been a sexual assault in dr. ford's past. as has been stated, it was not entirely clear when, where, and all other circumstances but there's no doubt in my mind that she truthfully testified that she had had a sexual assault, had been assaulted in her past. i have to say, i also listen very carefully to judge kavanaugh as he testified and i

felt that the testimony he gave was also honest. he gave a thought very strong testimony that she was not ther there. and so this committee has to face the difficult task of what burden of proof does it apply or what standard does it apply in exercising the advice and consent that it gives and that's a very difficult thing that each one of us individually needs to face and deal with. as i've said, i don't feel that the evidence shows that judge kavanaugh was there that night. i believed his testimony, i believed dr. ford's testimony about sexual assault and because of that, i will vote yesterday to move the nomination forward to the floor.

>> mr. chairman, this has been obviously my first process, my first time through a supreme court nomination process. i fought for years to be on this committee, it's the one i wanted to be on as soon as i got to the united states senate in 2013. it has been an incredible experience, a lifetime dream to be a part of this committee and i have a lot of respect for you. some people even on my side of the aisle have criticized me for the affection with which i have for you, you have been a partner. there is something about the four most members of this committee, senator hatch, senator grassley, senator feinstein, in many ways you all have been anchors in this entire institution to a time where the comedy was deeper

and greater. and have resisted in many ways that i find admirable that the drift towards tribalism within that country and within this institution. if a supreme court vacancy happens, i was one of those individuals that did not wait long before i announced my intentions to vote against judge kavanaugh. and i did it for sincerely and deeply held beliefs. i did it because i felt that this was a person that had made it clear that entire list of people prepared by the federal society and had dear mike heritage foundation that this was a guy who spoke directly towards a view of presidential power and presidential immunities that in this perilous time where president is a subject of a criminal investigation that he was going to protect that

president. and said as much. make sure the president was above the law and accountabilit accountability. and i've learned a lot. i'm one of the guys on the side of the aisle when my colleagues speak on the other side of the aisle, i listen. i try to give them a full attention, and i don't always agree, but i've learned a lot from my colleagues and my friendships on the other side of the aisle, my sincere friendships, there's been times during these hearings that i've texted back and forth with people on the other side of the aisle. i respect them. and i've fought hard during this process. i've given it everything i've got. i've learned that going back to being a football player that between the whistles, you fight as hard as you can for what you believe. if you want to call that partisanship, fine.

i've been exuberant in my beliefs, and i've learned a lot through this process. some of my comments have been referenced numerous times that i know that i have not been as precise and allowed my comments to be mischaracterized, and i don't blame those people mischaracterizing my comments. i learned to take responsibility and learn to be precise. i talked to these issues and my values is much as i can. i've traveled around these countries seeing the dignity of republicans and democrats and recognizing as much as i can, and i say it. patriotism is love of country and you cannot love your country unless you love all your country, men and women. the goodness and the decency of republicans and democrats in this country is self-evident. and we demonize each other in

ways that i will be and continue to be an exemplar of trying to get our dialogue to rise to something different, to be a country that sees that we need each other, that there is no democratic or republican way to success, there's only an american way. and sir, you know and i hope i've said this to you personally and i think i've said it enough publicly but in the hardness with which i fight, i mean you know personal insult but i did say before and i say now before dr. ford's charges came up, i say very sincerely that i think that the way this process was run was a sham. i use that word. and that is because we were evaluating someone for the highest court in the land which seeing such a small part of his relevant work product. i didn't understand how so much of his writing, approximately 90% of his relevant work product was not even being seen by this committee and controlled by a process that was so broken, so

partisan. and then i violated the rules that you put forward into this committee willfully and knowingly and accepting the consequences of that. and i did so because the documents that were being withheld from the public, i felt the public had a right to know and they weren't calcified, no national security issues. and we disagreed on that and i locked horns with people across the aisle and even after all of that, i was grateful for the comedy, the denim and i knocked horns with most said i was taught to hate the sin but love the sinner. i really love being on this committee. i love it. from living in newark, new jersey, this is where i wanted to be. i wanted to be on a committee that dealt with issues of justice in this country because i feel that when we swear an oath to liberty and justice for all, i don't think we're there yet as a country.

and i have to say now as i'm sitting here, that i deeply resent this idea that somehow when dr. ford came forward that this dealt with partisanship. this has shifted this debate in this committee and in this country from rob partisanship to something much deeper. i have such respect for the ranking member, and i was in the room when we discussed literally hours after i was made aware that the letter existed about what her motivations were. it was a private room and forgive me for speaking out of turn if the ranking member believes i am, but her entire sense of decency and honor had nothing to do with politics. politics is not mentioned. her entire concerns for about the dignity and the humanity and

the respect for dr. ford. the conversation we had was about the best way to handle the information that was just presented to all of us. i've now been in numerous caucus meetings where politics has not been discussed. where what has been done as some of the most eloquent speeches i've heard in our caucus meetings from my colleagues about issues of sexual assault, i've heard colleagues read letters that had been written not by democrats and republicans but americans who are concerned about this issue. this is not a partisan moment for our country. back in the early 1990s, i was a student during the anita hill-clarence thomas hearings. and i think there's people on both sides of the aisle that agreed that was dealt with wrong, the process then did not

merit the dignity and decency of the folks involved or of the issue of sexual harassment. but yet, that involve multiple hearings. that involved multiple witnesses, that involved an fbi investigation, and yet we still criticize that process. now we are here today, and we have fallen even far short of what i believe was an inadequate process. this is not about partisanship, and a lot of folks are trying to make this about whether she was flying to california or not, whether the letter was authorized or released or not. whether the process served or not. that seems to be stripping away the heroism of dr. ford to come before this committee willingly even under circumstances that she set herself for not her wishes. she asked for an fbi

investigation. she asked for more witnesses. she wasn't given what she asked for and she still came here and sat before this committee. and what did she say? when someone has the courage to speak to one of the most powerful bodies in the land, what did she say? she shared a raw and visceral and credible, a profoundly powerful testimony with his committee and the world and she was believable. i believe her. she told us of her indelible memory using words like fear into her memory, speaking to brain chemistry in a way. she spoke about the uproarious laughter of brett kavanaugh and mark judge, being pinned to a bed.

hand over the mouth, fearing for her life, that she was terrified of being raped or accidentally killed. when this committee, what level of certainty, i'm not 100% sure, she said i am 100% certain that it was judge kavanaugh, consistent with other folks who experienced sexual violence, it was feared into her memory. she knows 100% and that's credible because she knew him. she'd interacted with him socially. before he attacked her. she didn't need to pick them out of a lineup of teenagers, she knew him. dr. ford's credible testimony does not stand on its own. it is bolstered by significant corroboration. in 2012, 2013, 2014, 2016, she spoke of it, she told it to five

people. long before judge kavanaugh was nominated to the supreme court, she told multiple people that she had been sexually assaulted as a teenager and in some instances, identified him specifically by name. and others she described her attacker as a federal judge. each of these individuals have provided this committee with their sworn statements attesting to these facts. we could have called those individuals. to testify that this was a coordinated attack on the summit to do with the clintons and all these other allegations. this is something in the early years had talked about brett kavanaugh assaulting her. this is not some kind of political attack, this is consistent not only with her statements that have been corroborated but we know about other people who have undergone attacks. dr. ford's account is also corroborated by independent facts. not opinions.

the fact that dr. ford identified mark judge and pj smith as others who were friends of kavanaugh's corroborated. it's also corroborated in judge kavanaugh's own calendar as we have seen. judge kavanaugh documented a gathering on july 1st, 1982 that included mark judge and pj smith and a reference to alcohol. dr. ford testified that shortly after the assault around six to eight weeks later in her estimation, she ran into mark judge at a local grocery store. and that he seemed very uncomfortable to see her. in his book wasted, tales of a gen x drunk, mark judge described working at a local grocery store in the summer of 1982. it's all consistent. the circumstances surrounding her coming forward to this committee also support her. first, she made contact with elected representatives before judge kavanaugh was even

nominated. this isn't some political hit job. before he was even nominated, she came forward with his testimony. the second she submitted to a lengthy, intrusive, emotional polygraph record. we didn't call for the polygraph test are that we could question them. the report concluded that she was truthful and now part of the committee's record. number three, she reportedly called for an fbi investigation into her claims. a fully understanding that a false statement to the fbi could subject her to criminal penalties. we all know what it means when you get a call from a committee staffer or partisan in this case versus when you get a call from the fbi. we are lying to them as a penalty. if that is a powerful difference between a committee

investigation and an fbi agent interviewing people, chasing after facts, pulling on the loose threads that have been evident in judge kavanaugh's record and force. she came forward publicly despite knowing she would face harsh public scrutiny, threats, relentless invasions of privacy, that her life would be forever altered. we've heard about the effect which is real and not exaggerated but the effect on her as well and what she had to submit to my coming forward and making that courageous testimon testimony. judge kavanaugh's testimony regardless of these allegations stands in sharp contrast to dr. ford's testimony. first, judge kavanaugh has everything to lose should these allegations be fully investigated and proven true. everything to lose. and that's why i don't think he wants a full investigation. second, he has given numerous

opportunities time and time again to call for an fbi investigation, call for an independent investigation to clear his name, but he's refused to do so. if i was in the balance and was being accused of things that i knew relies, i would be demanding every bit of evidence and investigation possible. i be calling for independent investigators, every loose thread. but he hasn't, he's refused to call for this committee to hear even live testimony from witnesses that could corroborate his story for the doctors. third, his testimony claims regarding his drinking habits and behavior in high school from college beyond have been contradicted by so many people. his statements have just proven to be not true. judge kavanaugh freshman college roommate said that he was frequently incoherently drunk,

and that he became aggressive and belligerent when he was drunk that's not the only one. judge kavanaugh's friend from yale college to whom he referred to numerous times set is not credible for judge kavanaugh to say that he has no memory lapses and the nights that he drank to excess. and i'll tell you this mr. chairman, lynn brooks who said she did not want to come forward, another friend from yale and showing this is not partisan, she is a republican, mr. chairman, she did not want to come forward but last night after listening to his testimony was so offended by his lies that this is what his friend from yale, a registered republican said. there is no doubt in my mind that while at yale, he was a big partier, often drink to excess, and there had to be a number of nights he does not remember. in fact, i was witness to the night he got tapped into his fraternity and was stumbling

drunk and he was in a ridiculous saying really dumb things. i could almost guarantee that there was no way that he remembers that night. this is a registered republican who did not want to come forward until he heard the lies of judge kavanaugh. brooks said last night in an interview that there were multiple emails and texts circling amongst her classmates about how kavanaugh was "lying to the senate judiciary committee in his testimony." that's from a republican who did not want to come forward until she witness those lies. judge kavanaugh testimony yesterday also mischaracterizes what three other people dr. ford indicated. he told us as his exonerating evidence, kept mentioning three names over and over again. judge kavanaugh repeatedly said for people who knew dr. ford who said were present at the gathering said it didn't happen.

that's patently untrue. mark judge said i have no memory of this alleged incident. this is not it did not happen. pj smith said he has no knowledge of these allegations. that is not it did not happen. we lynn kaiser has said through her attorney, she has no recollection of being at a party or gathering for kavanaugh was president. it did not happen. in fact, leave and kaiser has said she believes dr. ford. the only person who has a a ded the event has taken place in the did not happen is judge kavanaugh. so now this is the real point. i would like to finish. i understand that. >> i want to ask the question. you've gone 17 minutes. they have three other people who would like to speak. >> i understand that, i am going to be closing my comments so

that i like to continue. >> are you willing to let three other people speak? to mike i want to finish my comments and you can let whoever speak speak. you're the chairman. >> go ahead. >> you can take my time if he wishes. >> this nation now is watching, not in a partisan way. we just saw a republican so offended because she knows kavanaugh. this is not democrats and republicans watching, this is americans watching right now to see what this body will do. this isn't about politics and partisanship. i will forever remember what dr. ford said when she came before us. she said she was performing her civic duty. she wasn't trying to destroy a man. she was a courageous, heroic woman telling her truth of sexual assault and sexual harassment. this is what was done to me, she said. many of my colleagues yesterday said they found dr. ford credible. but to confirm judge kavanaugh, he would have to say not only

that you don't believe her, dr. ford, but that you were so certain this didn't happen that you're willing to force a vote now without any further investigation. if at best, this means you think somehow she was confused, that she doesn't know what happened to her. even though yesterday, she told us that she remembers brett kavanaugh covering her mouth seared into her memory, expressing fear at the time that he might accidentally kill her. she told us details from 2012, 13, 16, and 17, told to a therapist, to her husband. so this is where we are in the united states of america right now. it is not a partisan moment. this is a moral moment in our nation. we did not have to have this vote today. we can correct the mistakes of the past in this nation. there are millions of people, men and women, survivors of sexual assault or watching this body of powerful people and what will happen.

this toxic culture, this pernicious patriarchy in this country has to stop. it is real in this country and people are suffering, and they are watching this body right no now. children abused watching what powerful people in religious institutions, how they sweep it aside, deny, attack. people and corporations for news media outlets who were abused and harassed for years. and their testimony, their truth was swept aside, belittled. they were attacked, they were vilified, they were followed by investigators. millions are watching this body and how we act. do we rush to a vote? will be brushed aside a credible witness' testimony? will we belittle and attack credible testimony? will be ignore credible testimony? will be listening, we believe?

in the united states of america right now, there are dark corners of our culture. the centers for disease control reports one out of every three american women, 1 out of 3 american women will experience some form of sexual violence. 1 out of 6 men. 60% of them go unreported. and there are those right now watching this group of powerful people, how will we deal with a privileged man, a seat on the supreme court is not an entitlement just because he went to yale law school or where the captain of your basketball team. this is not an entitlement. and mr. chairman, i'll tell you this, this is not a court of law. we are not saying this man is guilty of what he said. the question is, do we know enough now to delay this or are we going to rush to put someone on the supreme court with his cloud hanging over them?

i cannot stomach that we are going to move forward, that we are going to say to women across this country that say to men across this country. >> i think that question you just asked is a good place to stop. >> i will stop with this. respect for this committee and respect for you. i cannot sit here, i cannot participate in what i know history is going to look back as a dark moment again in the same way we look back at the anita hill-clarence thomas trials. i cannot participate in that. i conclude my remarks. we should not brushed aside her comments, we should not belittle her testimony, we should listen to her, we should listen to women, and we should thoroughly investigate this before moving forward and any other thing is to diminish the truth, diminish the issue of sexual harassment in this country and to again relegate ourselves to what i

believe is a dark, dark element of our society. and with that sir, i will leave. >> senator kennedy. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in my judgment, there were no winners in this room yesterday. none. all i saw were two people, to human beings in pain. all of us, in my opinion, including dr. ford and judge kavanaugh, have a blinkered perspective.

whatever happened happened 40 years ago. and that's just a fact. i don't know what happened to dr. ford. i don't know if we'll ever know what happened to dr. ford. i do believe that something very, very bad happened. to dr. ford, and i am very sorr sorry. but i do not believe that judge brett kavanaugh was involved. and that's why i will support his nomination. let me talk about something that i'm a little more certain of, and i will be brief, mr. chairman.

this has been as someone put it in an article this morning, a grotesque carnival. in my opinion, this has been an intergalactic show. as far as i'm concerned, congress has hit rock bottom and started to dig. and all of this could've been avoided. every bit of it. the other thing i'm certain of is that the games, this character assassination has damaged dr. ford and judge

kavanaugh and their families irreparably. and it could've been avoided. senator feinstein talked about this earlier, and she's right. how we treat women in america does matter. this is no country for creepy old men. for young men. or middle-aged men. but this is no country at all in my opinion, at least not the kind of country i want to live in, without due process. both the accuser and the accused is entitled to respect and

fairness and yes, to due proces process. to the person who leaked dr. ford's letter, to the person who breached dr. ford's anonymity, and to the person who did not tell her she could have avoided this by testifying privately in her home in california, you know who you ar are. you should bow your head in shame in my opinion, and you

should hide your head in a bag every day for the rest of your natural life. and you also ought to read something. i don't know if you believe in god or if you read the bible, but there is wisdom in a passage whether you read the bible or believe in god or not. and i'd refer you to matthew 16 16:26, "for what is a person profited if he gains the whole world and he loses his soul." thank you, mr. chairman.

>> mr. chairman? >> you yielded your time. >> i yielded part of my time, do i have any left? >> you may proceed. >> i'll yield my time to him, mr. chairman. >> i appreciate that graciousness and i hope it is a sign that we will rebuild across the aisle. yesterday, there were words spoken and we know in families that words are spoken in anger and sometimes in the moment that we later walked back. those words yesterday from members across the aisle to this

side were extraordinary for confirmation hearing, and i know they would say that some of our words to them may be on the same level. but we have worked together, we have traveled together, we have a responsibility together to do the business of the united states senate. and mr. chairman, i know you may not agree with me but i think in the spirit of working together, a delay in this vote would be appropriate. i am here to make a last appeal that we avoid a rush to judgment for your position. the session yesterday was a job interview.

and it's a job interview for a position unlike any other. i have tremendous reverence for the united states supreme court, i was a law clerk there, argued for cases they are, spent most of my career in the court and my belief is this decision on how to vote, and i will vote no, is among the most important that i will make as a united states senator . the united states of america deserves not just a good nominee, but the best person for the job. and the person that we saw come before us yesterday was filled with such rancor and animus, such anger that i cannot accept that he would be an impartial and objective justice on the united states supreme court.

to describe members of this committee as a left-wing conspiracy, to threaten, literally to threaten united states senators, i simply cannot accept. we are interviewing judge kavanaugh for a position that is a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. he cannot be removed except through impeachment, and he will be there for decades to come. i made no secret of my opposition to him based on his out of the mainstream views and judicial philosophy. his apparent goal to chip away, and the guarantees that allow women to decide when and whether they become pregnant and have children, the decision by

millions of americans to marry the person they love, consumer rights, workers rights, the powers of the president which i think would become an imperial presidency if he becomes a justice on the supreme court. yesterday, my opposition solidified because of temperament and fitness. which i believe he lacks. by virtue of this greed that he sat here and gave up his views still are disqualifying for me. but his character and fitness ought to be a reason for everyone to vote no. we saw witness yesterday of an entirely different character and temperament, a woman who told us her story and steady, even

helpful terms. him a story that was deeply painful for her and she has endured threats and public assassination, character assassination, public shaming that no one should have to suffer. my heart goes out to her as well as to judge kavanaugh's family. these kinds of vile comments or threats have no place in our public discourse. she has every reason to remain silent and no incentives personally to come forward except to do a public service for the nation as she stated. and her story was powerful, compelling, personal. i believe her.

i have to disbelieve an angry and defiant man whose story simply does not hold up. he claimed that the fbi had already investigated him because they did a background check six times. the fbi never investigated dr. blasey ford's allegations. it never investigated ramirez's allegations, it never investigated julie swetnick's allegations. those are gaps in our work that need to be done. the aba issued a statement this morning supporting and fbi to investigation into judge kavanaugh, according to one of our colleagues the aba's reading is the gold standard. the committee of investigators may be conscientious and dedicated, but they are simply no substitute for a trained professional with the expertise and experience of fbi.

a person who is innocent would want to the fbi to investigate their claims and clear their name. judge kavanaugh refused to make that request. dr. blasey ford did so. the question is, what is he hiding, what is the administration concealing? why have we not received those millions of pages of documents that remain hidden, why has judge kavanaugh not taken a polygraph? he says they are not reliable. and that the polygraph dr. ward subjected yourself to was meaningless. she passed it. as a judge on the d.c. circuit, judge kavanaugh ruled that they are, in fact,