felony from them so i want to conclude with, that i have 45 seconds left so i'll ask you one quick question again on timing, you had a my understanding -- i had a meeting. that's my understanding of the date. >> what was established earlier today in testimony is that the ranking member's staff helped to -- helped dr. ford to retain the katz lawfirm on -- sometime between july 30th and august 7th. i want you to clarify one more time. in the meeting you had two weeks or more later, this issue was not raised to you. >> the issue was not raised. >> thank you, my time is up. >> we'll take a five-minute break now. >> another five-minute break for judge kavanaugh and the senate judiciary committee. about a half a dozen senators remaining to question judge

kavanaugh, if they, indeed, do want to take their time. and cokie roberts, the battle lines are drawn right now, as we've said. also the arguments are drawn right now. it's all on democratic side, fair process, demands an fbi hearing, republicans saying, you had your chance, you had this information for months. now it is all about how those arguments are received by fewer than ten senators. >> right. i can't imagine every senator will not take his or her time on national television to ask questions. >> they didn't take their time this morning. >> well, but that was a different situation. but the -- the fact is, it is probably three, if that -- >> starting at three, but you can radiate out. >> well, except for -- my sense is the battle lines are getting drawn harder and harder as this day progresses. and -- >> purely partisan. >> totally partisan.

and not only is this happening in this hearing, it's going to effect everything that happens in this senate from here on out. if we thought it was bad before now, this is going to be just awful. we're going to have people furious with each other and just not wanting to cooperate in any way whatsoever. >> cecilia, i would imagine that when the gavel hits again, when senator grassley closes cown this hearing, we could see a tweet from the president, quite quickly. >> i wouldn't be surprised the second it's over. if our own reporting is correct, and we've seen the white house aides in the west wing kind of holed up behind closed doors, they are probably helping draft some kind of official response, if not from the president himself, from the white house. i think that we will see that very soon. one thing that struck me that we learned in the last half hour is, judge kavanaugh said that a delay of a week is far too long. so, we did finally get an answer on whether or not the fbi should

investigate, and that's a flat-out no. >> the question, mary bruce, at this point, that delay of a week, the one that chris coons laid on the table, is that going to appeal to senator murkowski, senator collins? >> it will be interesting to see how that falls with them. i mean, certainly it seems like they've wanted a lot of time to digest these testimonies that we've heard here today, that seems to be the impression that we were getting from them before today, that they wanted to take these allegations seriously, one would imagine they would want plenty of time to absorb them. but we have not heard any reaction from them. and it is very clear that republicans want to move this thing along. mitch mcconnell clearly very eager to stick to his original plan to hold this vote very soon. >> in fact, i texted with something in senator mcconnell's office during the last round of questions, mary, he said the vote is still scheduled for tomorrow. >> we've seen no change in that whatsoever. and we heard from lindsey graham, he thinks the vote should be held, other republicans on the committee who

seem perfectly happy to move forward with that vote. so far, no change. that vote, right now, still on the books here from the committee tomorrow morning and then mitch mcconnell would say he would bring this to an up or down vote on the senate floor very soon. that's the last word we had from leader mcconnell. there's no indication that's changed whatsoever. >> terry moran, the question on the table right now is an appeal to party loyalty all it's going to take? >> well, that -- that depends on how the rest of the day goes. when they see how the polls are. if the polls are split as rigidly along party lines as this committee is, then, yes, i think that republicans will get their votes where they need them, may even pressure some of those red state democrats to come along, especially as they develop this argument that this is a dirty trick. they've got some circumstantial evidence, if dr. ford's letter arrived at senator feinstein's office at the end of july, by the 7th of august, he's taking a polygraph test with lawyers who were provided her, who she was connected to, through senator

feinstein's office, that suggests that they were already preparing for some kind of public test of her allegation, and yet it was weeks before anyone on the republican side or judge kavanaugh heard about it. you'll hear that kind of argument. circumstantial. but this was something that was cooked up by democrats. now, that doesn't actually go to the truth or falsehood of the accusation, but it may help people get up their partisan energies. >> certainly seems like there's been a sea change at the white house. >> this morning, the mood inside the white house, the mood inside republicans on the hill was one of gloom, that blasey ford seemed like a credible witness. this did not look good. that all changed when you saw kavanaugh come in, come backfiring, defending himself, indignant, angry and hitting back at the democrats. it's exactly what the president himself wanted and it's what republicans wanted to hear. so, now, george, i think what

we're looking at is, one person on this committee, there's one potential vote on this committee, and that's jeff flake, if flake is going to be essentially, if he's going to be a yes or kavanaugh, this vote goes through tomorrow. and we go to a very shortly thereafter a vote on the senate floor. i think it really comes down to jeff flake. >> and very hard to see. he gave that speech on the senate floor yesterday, we talked about, let's think about these two people at the center of it. let's talk about who jeff flake is. jeff flake is retiring, retiring republican senator from arizona. has been very critical, highly critical, perhaps a senator next to his former colleague, senator john mccain, most critical of president trump and what he's called his assault on our institutions. some say he's looking at a run for president. a potential republican candidate to vote against a republican nominee for the supreme court. >> well, if he's a potential republic

republican. nominating to the court. so, no, but he did speak passionately about the need to treat this process in a fair way, in a nonpartisan way, so, that will be weighing on him, as well. the question is, you know, jeff flake is somebody who has absolutely no loyalty to the president. i mean, as you pointed out, he's been highly critical of the president, but the president has vilified flake in incredibly harsh ways, so, it's not somebody the president can call up and say, support my nominee. this will be a decision he'll make on his own. >> judge kavanaugh sitting down. perhaps we'll see senator flake question him.

>> i'm good. >> thank you, mr. chairman. judge kavanaugh. my colleagues on the other side are accusing the democrats of some sort of political conspiracy, but that's because they want to distract us from what happened here this morning, and what happened here this morning was that we heard from dr. christine ford, who spoke to us with quiet, raw, emotional power about what happened to her. she said she was 100% certain that it was you who attacked her and she explained how she came forward, how she struggled with her decision, how she wanted the president to know so that he could make a better choice. so, when you and my colleagues on the other side accuse us of ambushing you with false charges, i think we all have to remember dr. ford's testimony and her courage. let me go back to something you just said in your opening.

you said you thought at your first hearing that democrats were anembarrassment. we asked you a lot of questions in those days. which of our questions do you think were an embarrassment? i asked you about dissents you had written as a judge, and your knowledge of sexual harassment and abuse by your close friend and mentor, all valid questions in this setting. they're valid because this is a job interview for one of the most important positions of trust in this country. and earlier, you agreed that this process is really a job interview. certainly not a criminal trial. certainly no entitlement for you to be confirmed to the supreme court. our credibility, character and candor of a nominee, things for us to consider in your job interview? >> i think my whole life is subject to consideration. >> is that yes? credibility, character and

candor, are those specific traits that would be of interest to us as we consider putting you for life on the highest court in the country? credibility, character and candor. >> of course. and as part of my whole life. >> thank you. is temperament also an important trait for us to consider? >> for 12 years, everyone who has appeared before me on the d.c. circuit has praised my judicial temperament. that's why i have the unanimous well qualified rating from the american bar association and all the people who have appeared -- >> so, you would agree that temperament is also important factor for -- >> yes. the federal public defender who testified to the committee talked about how i was always open-minded and how i ruled in favor of unpopular defendants. i was fair-minded. i think universally, lawyers who appeared before the d.c. -- >> so, the answer is yes. i'm running out of time. we only have five minutes.

so, let me get to something else. in your fox news interview, you said that you, quote, always treated women with dignity and respect, end quote. and that in high school, you never, quote, drank so much that you couldn't remember what happened the night before. would you say the same thing about your college life? >> yes. >> so, i'd like to read statements from people who knew you in college. >> can i say one thing -- >> james roche said your roommate, although brett was reserved, he was a notably heavy drinker, even by the standards of the time and he became aggressive and belligerent when he was drunk. so, is your former college roommate lying? >> i would refer you to what i said in the sealed or redacted portion about his relationship with the other two roommates and i'm going to leave it at that. i will say, senator, you're asking about college, i got into yale law school. that's the number one law school in the country. i had no connections there, i

got there by busting my tail -- >> i feel insulted as a ranked number one, that and, you know, in college, two things. a, i studied, i was in cross campus library every night. and b, i played basketball for the junior varsity, i tried out for the varsity. the first day i arrived on campus, we had captain's workouts. as soon as the season was over in late february, captain's workouts started again. i was obsessed with -- >> so, you were not -- i only have 23 seconds. so, you were not a sloppy drunk, and so your roommate was lying? >> i would refer you, again, to the redacted portion. i'll say, look at my academic record and -- i don't usually like to talk about myself this way, but in response to you, i

worked very hard in college, in my studies. and i also played basketball. i did sports. and i also -- >> okay, wait. excuse me. i know that the chairman is going to stop me, but i do have some other references from people who knew you, who say that you were not the -- >> your time is up. >> hold on. i'm sorry, mr. chairman -- mr. chairman, okay, i'll wait until we finish, because i just want to enter some letters into the record. could i do that? >> i wasn't clear that's what you were doing. >> it's not a question. i could go on. but mr. chairman, i'd like to enter into the record four letters, one is dated september 18th, 2018, to you, from all of the democrats on this committee, another is a letter dated september 18th, to christopher wray, the director of the fbi and don mcgahn, counsel to the president, signed by all the democrats on this committee. september 21st letter signed by chuck schumer and dianne

feinstein to the president, and a september 26th letter signed by all the democrats on this committee, all requesting an fbi investigation because you did say all we have to do is ask, and the implication being that if we happen and i cerin jeio thaill included. senator? >> thank you, mr. chairman. judge kavanaugh, thank you, again, for being here and i apologize for what you're going through right now. i can't imagine. and i've got through a campaign and had a lot of smears, but it pales in comparison to what you've had to deal with. i think one thing, one point that i'd like to make from the onset, if we go back and review how this committee process has worked, we've got a lot of work to do. we've had members take it on themselves to release committee confidential documents, instead of respecting the process. we've had an allegation held for nearly seven weeks that would

have given us plenty of time to investigate. and then, when we finally got the information, i invite everybody, particularly the american public, there is an investigation going on, and a lot of it has been documented. on the website, it says each and every time an allegation was made, the staff followed up on it. and sadly, in several different instances, the democrats declined to participate. they listened in on at least one interview with you, didn't ask a single question. if they wanted to find other things to do, why not ask? if you are really trying to get to the facts. if you're really trying to do your job to investigate. we're investigating. it's our job. i think in response to the ranking member's question that judge kavanaugh said, i'm here, you're asking me questions. but you know what? when the committee staff, i assume directed by the ranking member says, no, we're not going to ask questions of judge kavanaugh when he wanted to come in and clear his good name, what are you really after? you may not be after the truth.

maybe you are. maybe you're after executing some sort of a political agenda. maybe it's a mix of both. but i think you've been treated unfairly. and i'm amazed that after 32 hours of testimony, one and a half hours, i sat in this room, that none of these questions came up, whe known. lawyered up, as a matter of fact. i also want to go back to the comments this morning. i think i heard, and we can go back to the record, if someone disagrees with me, i think i heard dr. ford say that she wasn't aware of the fact that we said we'd come to california, we'd make it confidential, we'll completely depose and ask any questions you want to, i think i heard her say she wasn't aware of that. i don't know where that came with counsel, if counsel just neglected to tell her, her counsel, but the fact of the matter is, that offer was out there. we were moving heaven and earth and moving the schedule to get

to the truth. we're doing an investigation. we're doing our level best. i hope that the american people who are watching this will go out to the senate judiciary website and take a look at this. take a look at the lack of investigation on the part of the it doesn't make a lot of sense. every opportunity you have to go and question a witness. every opportunity that we've had to find more truth, to find more facts, we've done it. it's documented. we've got sworn statements. we're doing our job. we're doing the committee work. judge kavanaugh, i also have to say, i believe you're the first major target of a new strategy that's developed here, and i think you're right, i think it's just basically attack, attack, attack. it's not advise and consent, it's search and destroy. and maybe one of the best

evidence of this is, one of the websites, one of the groups that are out there attacking you and trying to create fodder and all of these red herrings has already acquired a url for the next judge that they're going to attack. url is right here. they've already purchased it. this is the playbook. this is the way we're going to run this committee from this point forward? take a look at it. i'll make sure we get it out on our website. we've already got a stop another judge who hasn't been nominated, url, from the same people who are trying to mobilize people to attack you. there are some people here who may sincerely have concerns. i would tell you to pound the table with your ranking member and the leadership on your side to say, why didn't we ask questions? why did we listen in and defer? why didn't we do our part of the investigation while this leader did everything he could to accommodate dr. ford and to run

down every single lead that's been presented to us? weeks after it was known to the minority. i look forward to supporting your confirmation. i believe that you're going to be on the bench. you know, as senator cornyn said, these are allegations that can be pursued through the courts. if they actually rise to a level to where they can be prosecuted. and everybody on the other side here thoughs that's not going to happen. >> senator booker. >> judge kavanaugh. you drank on weekdays, as well, in high school, not just weekends. senator? >> weekdays? >> yes, sir. >> i'd say that's rare. talking about during the school year? >> i'm talking about the calendars you provided during these dates. >> oh, that's in the summer after a football workout -- >> you drank on weekdays, yes or no, sir? >> in the summer, when we went over to timmy's house on july 1st, that would indicate yes.

>> yes, in other words, that july 1st reference to skis, went over for skis, that's brewskis, correct? >> and after -- >> sir, i just need a yes or no. brewskis, right? >> well, i need to explain. >> you just said, sir, that you drank on weekdays. that's all i was looking for. if i may ask the next question, sir. you said clearly on the record, i want you to restate it that you never in your life after drinking heavily to the point of throwing up, and again, you said you had a weak stomach. you said you never had gaps in memories, never had foggy reck election, is that correct? >> that's what i said. >> okay. sir, you also said that this past two -- this past two weeks has been a two-week effort calculated and orchestrated as a political hit. are you saying that dr. ford's efforts to come forward to prepare for the very difficult testimony she gave today, to travel to washington, d.c. and tell us about her experience, have all been part of an orchestrated political hit and

are you basically calling her some kind of political operative? >> i've said, my family has no ill will towards dr. ford. she wanted blown by the actionf this committee and it's caused -- >> sir, let's just be clear. in other words, you are problems with the senators that are up here and how we conducted it, but you're not saying in any way that she is a political pawn, politicalen operative. you have sympathy for her. she's talking about a sexual assault. is that correct? >> all allegations should be taken seriously. should listen to both sides. >> do you -- >> my family has no ill will towards her. >> do you wish she never came forward? >> senator, i did not do this. the witness -- >> that's not my question. could you try to answer my question, sir? do you wish she never came forward? >> the witnesses who were there say it didn't happen. >> okay, sir. do you wish she would just remain silent then? >> the witnesses who were there say it didn't happen. all allegations should be taken

seriously. >> even if it's in the final days, days before a vote, if someone has a credible allegation of experience that they held for a long time, that person should be allowed to come forward and, in fact, as she said, it was her civic duty. you're not questioning her sense of civic duty, are you? >> she did come forward and then -- >> i know you have a lot of political an any must. you stated it clearly. what i'm trying to get to the bottom of is, you do not see her specifically as part of an orchestrated -- >> i don't know her. but i've also said that we bear no ill will towards her. this -- >> i understand. she came forward. she took a great extent, your family has gone through hell, her family has gone through hell. she sat here and told her truth and you made the allegation that she was coordinating it. i do not think she was coordinating -- >> i did not say that. that's -- >> you said -- i'm sorry. you said that others were making a coordinated --

>> people in this room. >> she was not doing this for political efforts in 2012 when she talked to her therapist about this attack. she was not coordinating about this painful experience when she made revelations to her husband. she did not coordinate in 2013, '16, 2017, before you were ever nominated when she revealed it was you with three different people that had sexually assaulted her. that wasn't coordination. >> all the witnesses who were there say it didn't happen. her long-time friend said she never saw me at a party with or without dr. ford. >> and she said clearly, i will quote what she said, she does not remember the night in question. that supporting what you said. and she said she believes dr. ford. and so, my colleague lindsey graham, who i respect and have admiration to and has been a partner of mine, he said voting no would be legitimizing the most despicable thing in american politics. do you think that people who believe dr. ford are

legitimizing despicable things? those of us who think he'sshe's credible witness, do you think we're engaging in something that's despicable? >> senator, i say listen to both sides before you make a bottom line conclusion. and look at the -- >> that is fair. and i have ten seconds left, sir, you can answer after i finish. that is fair. listen to both sides, this is not about somebody -- one side being despicable, the other side not. she was a credible -- i'm going to finish my question. you can answer. she gave credible, meaningful testimony, a woman who had the courage to come forward and tell her truth. sir. and that's what i'm asking you to say. she is not a political pawn. she is not orchestrating. she is not part of the clintons efforts to get some kind of revenge. she is a woman who came here with corroborating evidence to tell her truth. >> is that a question? >> no, sir, it was a final statement. >> just one thing, mr. chairman, the evidence is not corroborated

at the time. the witnesses who were there say it didn't happen. >> that's not what -- >> senator? >> thank you, mr. chairman. judge kavanaugh, you and your family have been treated incredibly poor ly by senate democrats and by the media. let me say, also, dr. ford and her family have been treated incredibly poorly by senate democrats and the media. you have seen your good names dragged through the mud. and this has been sadly one of the most shameful chapters had the history of the united states senate. let me say to you and your family, thank you for a lifetime of public service. i will say, watching your mother's pained face has been heartwrenching, as she's seen her son's character dragged through the mud after not only your lifetime of public service, but her lifetime of public service, as well. and i know, as a father, there's been nothing more painful to you than talking to your daughters

and explaining these attacks that the media is airing. i also believe, though, that the american people are a fair-minded people. that the american people can set aside the partisan warfare of washington and look to substance and facts. and that is the charge of this committee. now, there have been three different sets of allegations that have dominated the media. i think it's important to note that two of those sets of allegations had so little corroboration that even "the new york times", which is no conservative outlet, refused to report on them because they could find no basis for them. and it was striking in this entire hearing that not a single democrat in this committee asked about two sets of those allegations. miss are me ramirez's or the cl

mr. avenatti's. i don't know if they were embarrassed -- the ranking member omitted his client's most scandalous allegations, you as a criminal mastermind. omitted those from her statement. this hearing has focused, rightly so, on the allegations dr. ford presented. and let me say, i think the committee did the right thing in giving dr. ford a full and fair opportunity to tell her story. that's what we needed to do when these allegations became public. and the committee treated her with respect, as we should. i do not believe senate democrats have treated you with respect. what do we know? we know that her testimony and your testimony are in conflict. a fair-minded assessor of facts would then look to, what else do we know when you have conflicted

testimony? well, we know that dr. ford identified three fact witnesses who she said observed what occurred, all three of those fact witnesses have stated on the record under penalty of perjury that they do not recall what she is alleging happened. they have not only not corroborated her charges, they have explicitly refuted her charges. that's significant to a fair-minded fact-finder. in addition, you walked through before this committee your calendars from the time, now, i will say, you were a much more organized teenager than i was and that many of us were, but it was a compelling recitation of night by night by night where you were in the summer of 1982. that is yet another contemporaneous piece of fact to assess what happened. and we also know that the democrats on this committee

engaged in a profoundly unfair process. the ranking member had these allegations on july 30th. and for 60 days, that was 60 days ago. the ranking member did not refer it to the fbi for an investigation, the ranking member did not refer it to the full committee for an investigation. the ranking member -- this committee could have investigated those claims in a confidential way that respected dr. ford's privacy. and some of the most significant testimony we heard this morning is dr. ford told this committee that the only people to whom she gave her letter were her attorneys, the ranking member and her member of congress. and she stated that she and her attorneys did not release the letter, which means the only people that could have released that letter were either the ranking member and her staff or the democratic member of congress, because dr. ford told this committee those are the only people who had it.

that is not a fair process. and we should look to the facts, not anonymous innuendo and slander. >> mr. chairman? i ask for a point of personal privilege to respond. >> proceed. >> mr. chairman, let me be clear. i did not hide dr. ford's allegations. i did not leak her story, she asked me to hold it confidential and i kept it confidential as she asked. she, apparently, was stalked by the press, felt that what happened, she was forced to come forward and her greatest fear was realized. she's been harassed, she's had death threats and she's had to flee her home. in addition, the investigation that the republican majority is heralding is really nothing that i know about other than a partisan practice. normally, all the