kavanaugh will not be able to ride president trump's coat tails. in this hearing it's all on him. >> one perk watching this is president trump. we saw that performance from president trump yesterday. on one hand today and decide whether or not he's going t he's going to stick with him. >> contrary to what a lot of people thought the president says he is keeping an open mind and he will perhaps hearing something that could change his mind in terms of where he stands on this debate. i've got to say the thing that struck me the most about yesterday was that final question when the president was asked what is your message as you stand here and defend brett kavanaugh to the young men in this country, and the president's answer was, my message is that you are guilty until proven innocent in this country. i've talked to sources at the

white house. we know he is traveling from new york to washington today. he will be watching these hearings closely on air force one. the team on the ground keeping him abreast of all the details. tvs in the white house are already glued to this coverage. we know that the vice president has spoken with brett kavanaugh this morning to give him words of encouragement leading up to this hearing. >> brett kavanaugh will be watching dr. ford's testimony from the vice president's office on capitol hill as we see the chairman, senator charles grassley, enter the hearing room. we see several democrats as well. quickly, jon karl, the president calling brett kavanaugh a good man now, he is his nominee, but he was not always a popular choice with the president. >> reporter: by many counts he was somebody that was pushed on him by republican leaders by his own team vetting a supreme court candidate, and i'm told, george, that the president was not particularly happy with brett kavanaugh's performance in that fox news interview, felt that he he needed to be more defiant and

firm in his denials. this is a critical moment here. the president has made it clear he stands with brett kavanaugh. he hasn't given an inch on that. as cecilia mentioned, he did not rule out the possibility of changing his mind depending on what happens here. this comes down to this hearing, the performance in this hearing. we know he will be watching. >> the senators are taking their seats. senator grassley in place right now. i want to bring in our legal team as well, dan abrams and sunny hostin. let's keep an eye on chairman right there. what's the most important thing you're watching for, dan? >> i think this comes down to how dr. ford performs, meaning that even if brett kavanaugh performs well, even if he seems credible, if she seems credible and she seems believable, it's very, very hard then to move forward. because if you believe what she's saying, i think that it's going to be a real challenge

with regard to these swing votes. >> sunny hostin, we saw yesterday president trump did not want to call these women liars and that gets to the point dan was just making. you're a former sex crimes prosecutor. key individual today as well, rachel martin, who will be asking those questions. >> yes, absolutely. and i have to say she's at a disadvantage because generally when you're a prosecutor, you already have an investigation to rely upon so you almost know what the witness is going to say. she doesn't have that investigation behind her. so she has to be very probing and this is a delicate matter. >> dr. ford appears to have taken her seat right there. as david muir was mentioning, we haven't seen her on television. we've seen a couple still photos. this is the first time we've seen her, flanked by her lawyers, debra katz and mic micc abro abrohm wits. she also received a notice from debbie ramirez, the second accuser of brett kavanaugh saying, thinking of you today, christine.

they want us to feel alone and isolated but i'm there wrapping my arms around you and i hope you feel the people of this nation wrapping your arms around all of us, holding you up in spirit. she seems calm there so far behind the witness table. she will be sworn in after the gavel comes down from senator grassley. speaking earlier this morning with one of her friends, said that she is apprehensive about what is happening today but also confident in her story. she knows what she believes. she believes she knows what happened to her 37 years ago. she's prepared to tell that story even though it was a story she was not eager to tell the country just a few weeks ago. cokie roberts, the whole country is going to know her by the end of the day. >> exactly. i was just thinking that. there she sits down knowing that millions and millions of people are staring at her right now and trying to assess her before she opens her mouth. this is such a moment for her and so, so difficult. but it's going to be difficult

for the members of the committee too. they can blow it. so they need to be very careful. >> which is why, in part, so many of the republican senators remembering that anita hill experience from 1991 do not want to do the questioning. we just heard the gavel. this morning we continue our hearing on the nomination of judge brett kavanaugh to serve as associate justice on our supreme court. we will hear from two witnesses, dr. christine blasey ford and judge kavanaugh. thanks, of course to dr. ford and judge kavanaugh for accepting our committee's invitation to testify and also thank them for their volunteering to testify before we even invited. both dr. ford and judge kavanaugh have been through a

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

investigating sex crimes will be questioning the witness. i see no basis for complaint other than just plain politics. the testimony we will hear today concerns allegations of sexual assault, very serious allegations. this is an incredibly complex and sensitive subject to discuss, and it's not an easy one to discuss. that is why the senators on this side of the die as believe an expert in sexual assault and investigating sexual assault allegations should be asking questions. this will be a stark contrast to the grandstanding and chaos that we saw from the other side during the previous four days in this hearing process. i can think of no one better equipped to question the witnesses than rachel mitchell. ms. mitchell is a career

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

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

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

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

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

california. so i am very grateful to you for your strength and your bravery in coming forward. i know it's hard. but before i turn it over, i want to say something about what is to be discussed today and where we are as a country. sexual violence is a serious problem and one that largely goes unseen. in the united states it's estimated by the centers for disease control 1 in 3 women and 1 in 6 men will experience some form of sexual violence in their lifetime. according to the rape, abuse and incest national network, 60% of sexual assaults go unreported. in addition, when survivors do report their assaults, it's often years later due to the trauma they suffered and fearing their stories will not be

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

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

public. then within 26 hours of coming forward, republicans scheduled a hearing without talking to her or even inviting her to testify. she was told she had to show up for the -- or the committee would move forward with a vote. it took a public outcry from the majority -- excuse me, for the majority to back down and give her even a few days to come before the committee. republicans also scheduled this hearing with dr. ford without having her allegations investigated by the fbi. in 1991, anita hill's allegations were reviewed by the fbi as the normal process and squarely within its jurisdiction. however, despite repeated requests, president trump and the republicans have refused to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

take off my clothes. he had a hard time because he was very inebriated and because i was wearing a one-piece bathing suit underneath my clothing. i believed he was going to rape me. i tried to yell for help. when i did, brett put his hand over my mouth to stop me from yelling. this is what terrified me the most and has had the most lasting impact on my life. it was hard for me to breathe, and i thought that brett was accidentally going to kill me. both brett and mark were drunkenly laughing during the attack. they seemed to be having a very good time. mark seemed ambivalent at times, urging brett on, and at times telling him to stop. a couple of times i made eye contact with mark and thought he might try to help me but he did not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

answer the questions fully beyond that five minutes. but when that -- when either dr. ford or judge kavanaugh gets done, then we immediately go to the next person. so i hope that that will be done , and dr. ford, i'm told that you want a break right now and if you do, that's fine. >> i'm okay, i got the coffee. thank you very much. i think i can proceed and sip on the coffee. >> nobody can mix up my coffee right, so i -- so you're pretty fortunate. now, with that, ms. mitchell, you have my five minutes to ask questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good morning, dr. ford. >> hi. >> we haven't met. my name is rachel mitchell. >> nice to meet you. >> i just wanted to tell you the first thing that struck me from your statement this morning was that you were terrified, and i

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

somebody at the "washington post." do you have that in front of you? >> yes. >> the first two texts were sent by you on july 6th, is that correct? >> correct. >> then the last one sent by you was on july 10th? >> correct. >> are those three comments accurate? >> i will read them. so, there's one correction. >> okay. >> i've misused the word bystander as an adjective. >> okay. >> bystander means someone that is looking at an assault, and the person named p.j. was not technically a bystander. i was writing very quickly with a sense of urgency, so i would not call him a bystander. he was downstairs and what i remember of him was he was a tall and very nice person.

i didn't know him well but that he was downstairs, not anywhere near the event. >> okay. thank you for -- >> i'd like to take that word out if it's possible. >> okay, thank you for clarifying that. the second is the letter that you wrote to senator feinstein dated july 30th of this year. did you write the letter yourself? >> i did. >> since it's dated july 30th, did you write it on that date? >> i believe so. it sounds right. i was in rehoboth, delaware at the time. i could look at my calendar and try to figure that out. >> was it written on or about that date? >> yes, yes. i traveled, i think, the 26th of july to rehoboth, delaware so that makes sense because i wrote it from there. >> okay. is the letter accurate? >> i'll take a minute to read it. >> okay. >> i can read fast.

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

because i don't -- we've got -- i've got to treat everybody the same. >> i understand that. >> can i go to senator feinstein or do you -- >> yes, sir. sorry, i didn't see the light was red. please do. >> senator feinstein. >> we're going to come back to that. >> i see, okay. >> for the benefit of dr. ford, i think she'll continue that after the five minutes here. >> okay. >> mr. chairman, i'd like to begin by putting some letters in the record. >> without objection, so ordered. >> thank you. >> you want to tell me. >> 140 letters from friends and neighbors of the witness and 1,000 female physicians across the country, those are what the letters are.

i want to thank you very much for your testimony. i know how very, very hard it is. why -- why have you held it to yourself all these years? as you look back, can you indicate what the reasons are? >> well, i haven't held it in all these years. i did disclose it in the confines of therapy where i felt like it was an appropriate place to cope with the sequelae of the events. >> can you tell us what impact the events had on you? >> well, i think that the sequelae of sexual assault varies person to person, so for me personally, anxiety, phobia and ptsd-like symptoms are the types of things that i've been coping with. so more specifically, claustrophobia, panic and that type of thing. >> is that the reason for the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>> okay, i'm going to put checkmarks next to homes that i can confirm are the correct locations and then an x or a question mark when i don't know where these people live. >> i'm only asking you to confirm if that map accurately shows where you were living at the time. >> where i lived at the time. so i can't see the street name but i'm happy to refer to the address or the neighborhood. >> okay, could you tell us that? >> yes. it's river falls. >> okay. >> near the, like -- what is the place called, the naval research center on clara barton parkway. >> was that a house or an apartment? >> it was my parents' home. >> okay. >> senator durbin. >> mr. chairman, i ask consent to enter into the record letters of support for dr. ford from her classmates at holton-arms school, 1200 alumni of the school, 195 of your colleagues, students and mentors, 1400 women and men who attended d.c.

schools, and 50 members of the yale law school faculty who are calling for a full fbi investigation. i ask consent to enter these into the record. >> without objection. so ordered. >> dr. ford, i want you to know that your courage in coming forward has given countless americans the strength to face their own life-shattering past and to begin to heal their unds. by example, you have brought many families into an honest and sometimes painful dialogue that should have occurred a long time ago. i'm sorry for what this has done to you and your family. no one, no one should face harassment, death threats and disparaging comments by chief-shot politician. you should know for every skurl lus charge and pathetic tweet, there are thousands of women and men who believe you, support you and thank you for your courage. watching your experience it's no wonder that many sexual assault

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

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

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

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

durbin said -- by the way, he's my friend. we work on a lot of legislation together. but you talked about the obstruction from the other side. i cannot let it go by what you've heard me say so many times that between july 30th and september 13th there were 45 days this committee could have been investigating this situation, and her privacy would have been protected. so something happened here in between on your side that the whole country -- not the whole country should have known about it, no. we should have investigated it. we'll take a break now for 15 minutes. dr. christine blasey ford there after about one hour of testimony before the senate judiciary committee. said at the top it would be consequential and dramaticmeumd.

also incredibly emotional. about a half-hour before her opening statement saying she was terrified to come before the country but she felt it was her duty and saying as we just saw from the number two democrat saying she is 100% sure that it was brett kavanaugh that physically assaulted her back when she was in high school 37 years ago. cokie roberts is here at the desk. we know people are watching this all across the country. as this began, i got a text from a friend saying she looks like every woman you know. >> she indeed does. she is someone who is completely recognizable to everybody in the country. we know women just like her. she certainly doesn't seem to be somebody with an agenda as she is putting herself in this very difficult position. it's a very odd hearing and the difference between the democrats and republicans has been very striking. but her persona, i think, has come off so far as highly credible. >> cecilia, the president said he would be watching.

>> and they are. he will be on air force one. i think he is right now. we know that the white house, the televisions are already glued to this. everything is on the line for this administration right now. they need this supreme court confirmation. we heard the president yesterday out there trying to make his case. he said he's keeping an open mind, that he could hear things that are believable from her today. i don't know how you argue against what you've heard so far. >> sunny hostin, you've prosecuted these sex crimes. one of the interesting things about dr. ford's testimony is the detail she does remember and how she explains why she remembers what she remembers. you say that's quite common. >> it's quite common because she's a psychologist, a clinical psychologist. i have worked with them throughout my career and the way she is describing the trauma is very credible and very accurate given the job that she has, the career that she has had. i will tell you in maryland there's no statute of limitations for attempted rape and i think i said this to you during the examination here. i would take this case to trial.

i've examined hundreds of witnesses on the witness stand. she's extremely credible, extremely detail oriented. there are the things about the things she has said like the stuff that she has two front doors. you can't make that stuff. it's so unusual, it makes her testimony extremely credible. and the fact also that she said i'm terrified to be here, i don't want to be here but i feel this is my civic duty. i found her to be one of the most credible witnesses i've ever seen. >> dan abrams, you said so far this is all about her. >> so far this is an unmitigated disaster for kavanaugh procedurally and substantively. on the procedural side, you have rachel mitchell, this attorney, clearly trying to point out inconsistencies. >> or lay the groundwork for inconsistencies later. >> that's the problem. in this kind of proceeding laying groundwork doesn't work.

you have her laying groundwork followed by punches from democrats where they help support the witness's credib credibility and then more of these sort of detailed questions which, in a typical trial, you would say, okay, we're going to get a chance, we're going to get a closing argument here but each one of the democrats is getting to make a closing argument at each stop. so it's a real problem for republicans. i wonder whether they're going to at this break start rethinking how they have to move forward here. are they going to change strategy and say, you know what, some of us have to be able to get in and speak. then you've got the substantive side of it which is so far, again, her demeanor as a witness. she comes across credibly. if that's going to fail you're going to need someone to undermine her credibility and to point out inconsisteskinlconsin >> david muir and mary bruce, that's what it looks like from tv.

david, how about the room? >> it is unmistakable how clunky it is between the republicans on this committee to the democrats. you've talked about rachel mitchell who has been brought in by the republicans so they would not have to question dr. christine blasey ford or brett kavanaugh and he appears before us here later today. but that transition back and forth has been bumpy if you will. what has not been bumpy is sort of the temperature and tone in that room from the woman who is answering the questions, dr. christine blasey ford. obviously up to the american people at home to make up their own minds about the veracity of what she's saying, but she has been very consistent, george. she said i am here not because i want to be, i am terrified. she said the details of that night i will never forget, as she choked up reading her opening statement. then in the questioning that followed, she said could ts be a case of mistaken identity. no was h answer. is it possible you mixed them up? no was her answer. she was asked by senator durbin about the possibility of this

being mistaken identity. she said to this question, what degree of certainty was this brett kavanaugh? her answer, 100%. i have to say, george, as americans -- and this has become so political obviously, these allegations against brett kavanaugh as they decide whether or not they believe what they hear today, there is the other major issue in this country in this era of me too. that moment where senator patrick leahy looked at her and said there are millions of people across this country who are victims of sexual abuse, sexual assault, for whom you have become a hero up here today. they respect you with coming forward with nothing to gain. george, you could see her as she picked up that cup of coffee she had asked for, she was visibly moved. that was the first moment in the room when her efforts were applauded for representing people around the country whose voices haven't been heard. >> mary bruce also up on capitol hill. you cover it every single day. we know who the most important audience is here, just a few senators haven't already made up

their minds but you can also see in that room people visibly tearing up during the testimony. >> incredibly emotional in this room and we are just getting the first reaction from lawmakers here. i'm standing just down the hall from the hearing and we just saw all of the members of the committee file by, go into a room here right next to me. republican chairman grassley, when asked if he finds dr. ford's testimony to be credible, said i know we have to take her very seriously. he later told one of our producers, john park inson, that he feels that her testimony is something they need to sleep on. remember, this committee is scheduled to have a vote on judge kavanaugh's nomination tomorrow morning. republicans here are trying to walk a fine line. we've heard members of the committee reiterating that they need to hear dr. ford's testimony, important to hear her side of the story, yet we've seen republican leaders here in the senate and of course the president himself coming out in recent days rallying behind judge kavanaugh. republicans in many ways trying to walk a fine line and have this both ways.

so much of this today comes down to perception, to how lawmakers will define whether they do find christine blasey ford's testimony to be credible. in fact, i asked one of the republican members of this committee that exact question yesterday, republican john kennedy, and he said that's like asking him to define the holy spirit, that it will come down to a feeling it. >> reminds me of the old potter stewart, you'll know it when you see it. i want to pick up the point dan abrams is making about the performance. john tucci reporting that a source close to president trump says the prosecutors are not being as effective as they hoped. >> how could she be, she's doing these five-minute increments. every time she starts to get going, she gets interrupted for the democrats to go. it does not seem to be an effective strategy. george, there's a big question that seems to me that's raised here in the fest pairst part of hearing which is what about mark

judge? we know we're going to hear from brett kavanaugh after this testimony is over, but mark judge as the other person in that room clearly is relevant to this. the committee has decided not to subpoena him, not to have him testify. >> it does seem like the democrats have picked up and working that hard saying that -- basically laying the groundwork for how could you possibly have a vote without talking to mark judge. >> how can you go ahead -- after watching this testimony, how can you move ahead with a vote so quickly. but mark judge is relevant not only because he was, according to christine blasey ford, in the room and a participant in all of this, but also her very specific memory of approaching him at that safeway. these are all questions that it seems to me would need to be followed up on before this committee can charge head wiahe a vote. >> terry moran, you've covered

so many of these senate hearings confirming supreme court justices. the closest thing we've ever seen is clarence thomas and anita hill back in 1991. this is a very different hearing facing a very different country. >> that's it exactly and republicans are in a terrible, terrible find because of where they are. look, brett kavanaugh is their guy. they feel that he has been unfairly maligned. they are raising what they think is the dirty process that democrats used to get this allegation out. as people have noted, christine blasey ford did not want to become a public figure. somebody probably on the democratic side leaked it so that their political interests could overweigh her personal interests, but in order to make their case that kavanaugh is innocent, not only do they need him to make a very persuasive case, they have to somehow undermine this witness, christine blasey ford. i mean, that's just an incredible -- i'm also thinking of eight other people watching this right now, the justices of

the supreme court. washington is hushed right now. people are looking at their phones. the hallways are empty. in the chambers of the supreme court i guarantee you they are watching this. they know brett kavanaugh. he is a member of the judicial community here in washington. at the end of the day they're all institutionalists. i'm reminded during the anita hill/clarence thomas dispute they said who should get the benefit of the doubt. senator bird stood up on the senate floor and he said let's give the benefit of the doubt to the court and voted against it. >> voted no. senat senator feinstein said this is not a trial but a job interview for the highest job in the court. the details as she lays out her testimony, i want to go back to how she talks about why she remembers being assaulted by brett kavanaugh. >> let's go back to the incident.

what is the strongest memory you have, strongest memory of the incident, something that you cannot forget? take whatever time you need. >> indelible in the hipaa campus at laughter, uproar yus laughter between the two and they're having fun at my expense. >> you've never forgotten that laughter? you've never forgotten them laughing at you? >> they were laughing with each other. >> and you were the object of the laughter? >> i was underneath one of them while the two laughed. two friends having a really good time with one another. >> mary bruce? >> george, just a remarkable moment.

such a difference between reading her statement and actually hearing her saying it herself, these words coming out of ford's own mouth and it's part of the reason that the emotion in the room is running so incredibly high. one of the other really unusual things about this hearing today is of course the setting. it's a much smaller room, much smaller amount of the public is there, reporters of course are being limited from being in the room. we each only have i believe one reporter actually there in the room. and also the reaction of the members of the committee themselves. normally in a hearing you have members of a committee chatting amongst themselves, coming in and out of the room. our reporter in the room says you could hear a pin drop. they're riveted pby her testimony. many of these members of the committee are mothers and fathers. they obviously are bringing their own personal experience to consuming this testimony, to digesting all of this as well. >> cokie roberts, the idea of being laughed at. >> laughed at, laughed at, boys laughing at you while you are in

dire stress is just something that so many women in this country are just going to say, oh, my god, because we've all experienced it. there's not a woman who hasn't. and so to -- for that to be the thing that has just stuck in her brain, they were having fun and she was scared to death. >> stuck in her brain, indelible in the hypo campus. seeing the psychologist in her. >> one thing i'd like to go back to is this notion that the prosecutor is not doing a great job for the republicans. the problem here is i'm sure she is extremely skilled but she's going at this without the benefit of this investigation that generally prosecutors have. you work with the detective, you work with an fbi agent. so all the groundwork that she has to lay would have been laid already. >> this gets to the question dan was asking about what were her marching orders from the public. she seems like someone who's taking a deposition, who is laying the groundwork for testimony to come. maybe it's all building up to

some big gotcha moment at the end but we haven't seen it. >> we need to distinguish, this is not a legal proceeding. it is a political proceeding and the democrats so far are treating it like a political proceeding. you have rachel mitchell going through methodically as a good prosecutor would -- >> and kindly. >> yeah, there's nothing wrong with the way she's doing it. it's just for this kind of proceeding, it just doesn't quite work. also to have to stop every five minutes as she's asking questions, and you're right, we'll see at the end if there's some grand closing argument where they say here's the list of inconsistencies because i'm already starting to count the ones that she's trying to hit on. >> unfortunately, dan, she's in the position of conducting an investigation and an examination at the very same time. it's just not what we do as prosecutors. she's in a space, unfortunately for her, that she's just not used to. >> cecilia, this is looking ahead but we know when president trump saw brett kavanaugh on fox he didn't think it was a strong

enough performance. we saw what he said yesterday about why women come forward generally in his own experience. it might be difficult to hold onto that line after today. >> and i keep going back to that tweet, that very controversial tweet from friday where the president said if this happened, why weren't charges filed 35, 36 years ago. >> why didn't your loving parents come out. >> and this problem, more than 800,000 people on twitter tweeting the #whyididn'treport. you hear her story that is so similar to victims and survivors that we have all heard from and frankly that we all know. she was 15 years old and as you said, she built two doors in her house. these are very credible details. you talk about the political dpumt, d argument, dan, this is going to be impossible to argue against. i don't know how they do this tomorrow, on monday, whenever that vote happens, when we wait to hear from president trump, if in fact, he tweets, what will this first tweet be? it can't possibly politically be

against christine blasey ford. >> also what he said in that press conference yesterday is that women do this for a variety of reasons -- >> fame, money. >> fame or money. you look at this woman and you think she's doing this for fame or money? >> let's take a step back and say for a moment that brett kavanaugh does come across also as credible. >> as justin thomas dce thomas >> that's right. say everyone walks out of dr. ford's testimony and we agree she's a credible witness, she has said things in the right way, the substance fits, et cetera. what happens then if brett kavanaugh also performs well? >> the answer to that is going to depend on those republican senators in the room right now. we just saw might be crepe of idaho talking to senator flake. senator flake has not said how he's going to vote. david muir, you've heard some reaction from senator grassley's office? >> chairman chuck grassley himself in leaving the room was asked do you find her credible. he actually told reporters we need to take her very seriously, were his words.

later he told john parkinson that they will need to sleep on all of this. that was his reaction coming out. the faces of the other republicans leaving the room for this short break, solemn, rather stone-faced. you have to wonder about some of the other republicans on this committee. i know they made a calculation to bring in rachel mitchell out of arizona to do the questioning for them so there wouldn't be a repeat of anita hill 27 years ago, but many of the senators, although some were here, many of them were not here. ben sasse, jeff flake, and we've seen the photographs from our reporter in the room where they're leaning forward in their seats, their hands to their faces, intently listening to christine blasey ford and this calculation that they wouldn't ask the questions themselves in this moment to show that they too have sensitivity and compassion and do want to hear from this witness. when you hear from chuck grassly who says himself, we need to sleep on this, take this woman seriously, i wonder if they'll look back at this discussion of a miscalculation in not allowing some of these senators to show

that they understand this moment we're in. >> if he's saying an hour in that they're going to have to sleep on it, this was a tentative voting for the senate judiciary committee tomorrow. still many more questions for dr. blasey ford. brett kavanaugh is going to have the chance to make his statement and be questioned as well, but it does seem a little more than an hour in, heading into two hours after the opening statements that it's going to be difficult to go forward. cecilia vega, so quickly and before we've heard from the white house. >> we're getting word on the ground that the president was indeed watching the hearing on air force one. of course he's coming back from new york, back to the white house. the presence secretary, sarah sanders, came back to the press cabin during the flight to say that the president had been watching a little bit of a delay according to the pool that's traveling with the president. he's watching on fox news. but we're also hearing that he's not spoken to kavanaugh today. so a bit of an interesting turn. >> unlikely that he would necessarily speak to kavanaugh today.

cokie, we're hearing the gavel right now. let's go back to senator grassley. dr. ford, let me ask you a process question here. we were going to schedule a break for 12:05. this last break came just a little bit later. i didn't call it at the right time. we're going to have a vote at 12:40. would it be possible for you to go from now until 12:40 without a break? >> yes. >> okay, now it is senator cornyn's time. proceed, ms. mitchell. >> thank you, senator. i have a blow-up here to my right of the map that was shown to you. the address that's indicated on here as belonging to your family is what all the property tax records show as being your address. just to put it in perspective,

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

furthest point. you can see it's 6.2 and of course 8.2 miles. you've described this as being near the country club, wherever this house was, is that right? >> i would describe it as somewhere between my house and the country club, in that vicinity that's shown in your picture. the country club is about a 20-minute drive from my parents' home. >> of course i've marked as the crow flies. would it be fair to say that somebody drove you somewhere either to the party or home from the party? >> correct. >> has anyone come forward to say to you, hey, remember, i was the one that drove you home? >> no. in your july 6th text to "the washington post" that you looked at earlier, you said that this happened in the mid '80s. in your letter to senator feinstein you said it occurred

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

myself. >> i assume the legal driving age was 16? >> yes. >> you've talked about attending therapy. in your text to "the washington post" dated 7/6, you put in there, quote, have therapy records, talking about it. i want to make sure i understand that. did you already have your therapy records at that time? >> i had looked at them online to see if they existed, yes. >> okay, so this was something that was available to you via a computer, like a patient portal? >> actually, no. it was in the office of a provider. >> okay. >> she helped me go through the record to locate whether i had record of this conversation that i had remembered. >> did you show a full or partial set of those marriage therapy records to "the

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

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

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

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

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

circumstances, even having been not given the modicum of courtesy and support of a proper investigation, you've shown yourself particularly proud in doing that. the responsibility for the decision to have this be, i think, the only background investigation in history to be stopped as derogatory information came forward belongs with 13 men, the president, director ray of the fbi and the 11 members of the majority of this committee. as to the committee's investigation, the fact that mr. kavanaugh's alleged accomplice has not been subpoenaed, has not been ex examined and cross-examined under oath, has not been interviewed by the fbi, tells you all you need to know about how credible this performance is. the very bare minimum that a person who comes forward is owed

is sincere and thorough investigation, and you've been denied that and i will make a personal pledge to you here that however long it takes in whatever form i can do it whenever it's possible, i will do whatever is in my power to make sure that your claims get a full and proper investigation and not just this. ank you for being here. >> thank you. >> since this issue has come up so many times, i'd like to comment. "the new yorker" published an anonymous account of allegations september the 14th. two days later dr. ford identified herself as the victim in the "post" article detailing her allegations. i immediately directed my staff to investigate. september the 17th dr. ford's counsel went on several television shows requesting that her client have an opportunity to tell her story. the same day i scheduled a hearing for monday, september

the 24th giving dr. ford a week to prepare her testimony and come to washington d.c. on september the 17th, the committee investigative staff reached out to dr. ford and judge kavanaugh to schedule followup interviews with republican and democrat investigators. judge kavanaugh accepted the opportunity to speak to the investigators under criminal penalty. dr. ford declined. in his interview on september 17th, judge kavanaugh denies the allegations and requested a hearing as soon as possible. democratic staff refused to participate in that interview. the next day, september the 18th, committee investigative staff contacted mark judge requesting an interview. committee staff also learned the identity of two other alleged party-goers and requested interviews. mark judge submitted a statement under penalty of felony denying knowledge of the party described by dr. ford and states that he

never saw brandt -- >> some stations may be leaving us for local news but our live coverage of the confirmation hearing continues. >> you go through a background investigation by the fbi, then it comes to us. there's always some holes in it that we have to follow up on. and besides -- >> mr. chairman -- >> we're responding to dr. ford's request to tell her story. that's why we're here. >> mr. chairman, mr. chairman -- >> ms. mitchell -- >> mr. chairman, i just want to point out, to support what senator whitehouse said, in the anita hill case -- >> can we hear from ms. mitchell. >> -- george bush had the investigation opened up again. >> can you proceed, ms. mitchell. >> thank you, mr. chairman.