>> i don't think that's the democrat's plan. i think this is all part of a plan to get rid of kavanaugh and then try to take control of the senate in the midterms and get a more democratic friendly nominati nomination. >> we want to pause for st a moment now as we are joined by more of our nbc stations across the country. >> good morning, everybody. 10:00 a.m. in the east, 7:00 a.m. in the west and then in just a few moments, a woman named christine blasey ford, a ph.d. and psychology professor will come in and offer testimony against judge brett kavanaugh who is seeking an appointment to the supreme court. she's accused him of sexual assault when they were teenagers and this morning, the he said/she said will be poured right out into the public arena with senators like the ones you're seeing on your screens right there sitting in judgment. >> here with us right now, a

andrea mitchell, chuck todd and megyn kelly. hallie jackson, this is set to begin any moment. >> reporter: any second and in the rows behind where christine blasey ford will sit at the table flanked by her attorneys, we understand that about two dozen of her friends and supporters are in the room including one of her high school classmates. dr. ford arrived on capitol hill within the last 20 minutes or so. she is in a holding room, brett kavanaugh is expected to be elsewhere on the hill. these two are not going to be interacting at the request of dr. ford, so the logistics today, you'll see the opening statements from senator grassley, and then senator feinstein and then dr. ford and she has prepared remarks already. in those, she will describe struggling with whether to share her story publicly, once her name ended up out there. she had hoped to keep it confidential at first but says it is my civic duty to do this and also says for those accusing her of having some sort of partisan political motivation, she is no one's pawn. said she's fiercely independent and anybody who knows her knows

that about her. stepping back big picture, there is intense pressure on judge brett kavanaugh today. the president told me yesterday that there is a scenario under which he would withdraw brett kavanaugh's nomination. that was the first time that we had seen the door open like that from president trump, up until that point, everything indicated he was standing by his man. now, it depends on kavanaugh's performance and i will tell you that everybody at the white house is watching this. the president is in new york at the united nations but he's expected to be focused on this as is vice president mike pence. seeing how kavanaugh will do and want him to be more forceful than he has been earlier this week. it is a fine line for kavanaugh to walk coming out and expressing his anger at what he has described as a false accusation without in this sort of broader cultural me too moment perceived as going after dr. ford. >> thank you, hallie jackson. the president acknowledged, many people wondered, he'd see these things in the land of his own

experience of allegations in the world of sexual abuse. >> he'll remain and see if he'll be convinced while saying he believes these allegations to be false. let's get right to nbc's kasie hunt, on capitol hill and then a narrow margin of error for republicans to see this confirmation get through. >> reporter: that's absolutely right, savannah. they hold on to the senate by just that one extra vote. mitch mcconnell needs 50 republican votes to get this through. that means he can't lose two of his colleagues. we've been watching lisa murkowski, susan collins and jeff flake extraordinarily closely and i'll wrap up because dr. ford has entered the hearing room. >> we're seeing her now for the first time and she takes the seat, presumably her counsel now. >> a couple of advisers, michael bromwich and katz. she's released, as mentioned a couple of times, this opening statement which she will

deliver, but this is the first time america is getting a look at the woman who has accused brett kavanaugh, a federal judge, sitting federal judge, of sexually assaulting her as a young woman and now at least two other accusers willing to go on the record and put their names to accusations of a different but somewhat related nature and this morning, the senators who are there on the judiciary committee and many senators who will just be watching from their offices, some senators have cancelled other hearings so they can watch this testimony, they will be assessing her credibility, how does she sound and does she sound convincing? what kind of corroboration can she offer and megyn, as one of the lawyers here on this panel, you know this is what happens in courts of law all day long. >> you know, you've got to feel for her. you know, this person was not in the public eye up until a month ago. her first letter to dianne feinstein and local congresswoman suggested she wanted to stay anonymous but of course, that didn't remain possible.

feinstein referring it to the fbi, it became public and within a day, she outed herself in the "washington post." but look, she's about to get put through it, right? and i will say, women across this country, in states and federal courts stand up and do this every day and they don't enjoy it. there's no joy in it, but they do it because it's important. >> this morning, we continue our hearing on the nomination of judge brett kavanaugh, serves 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 of 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 13th, no, july 30th until september 13th when i first heard about it. the ranking member took no action. the letter wasn't shared with me or 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 the last evening, which the ranking member did not attend. judge kavanaugh answered nearly 1300 written questions submitted by senator at the hearing, more than all prior supreme court nominees. in this period, we did not know about the ranking member's secret evidence. then, only at an 11th hour, on the eve of judge kavanaugh's confirmation, did the ranking

member refer the allegations to the fbi and then, sadly, the 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, of course, judge kavanaugh, who is head to address these allegations in the midst of the media circus. when i received dr. ford's letter on september the 13th, my staff and i recognized the seriousness of these allegations and then 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 democrat 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 and democratic staff was invited to participate and could have asked any questions they wanted to but they declined, which leads me then to wonder if they're really concerned with 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, miss 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 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, or thorough

investigations into allegations. some of my colleagues consistentconsistent stated desires to process by any means necessary, push for fbi investigations into the allegations. but i have no authority to force the branch agency to conduct an investigation into a matter it considers to be closed. moreover, once the allegations become, 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 said he said, she said, they said, period. so when people wave an fbi report before you, understand 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. it's not an easy one to discuss. that is why the senators on this side of the dice believe an expert who has deep experience and training in interviewing victims of sexual assault and investigating sexual assault-led allegation should be asking questions. this will be a stark contrast to the grandstanding and chaos 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 experiences 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 governor janet napolitano previously recognized her as the outstanding arizona sexual assault prosecutor of the year. and 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 to, in close consultation with dr. ford's attorneys and her testimony will be the subject of this hearing. we've 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 sweatnick. my staff made eight requests, yes, eight requests for evidence from attorneys for ms. ramirez and six requests for evidence for attorneys for ms. sweatnick. neither attorney has made their clients available for interview.

the committee can't do an investigation if attorneys are stone walling. i hope you all understand that we have attempted to seek additional information as we do a lot of times when there's holes in what we call the b.i. reports. dois additionally, all the witnesses should know, all the witnesses should know they have the right under senate rule 25 to ask that the committee go into a closed session if a question requires an answer that is a clear invasion of their right to privacy. if they feel senate rule 26.5 should 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 ana eshu. the next day, called the doctor ford and spoke on the phone. she reiterated she wanted this held confidential and i held it confidential, up to a point where the witness was willing to come forward and i think, as my 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. >> 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 as she was about to speak. >> thank you. i have to say, when i saw your cv, i was extremely impressed. you have a bachelor's degree from the university of north carolina, chapel hill, two master's degrees, one from stanford and one from pepperdine and a ph.d. from the university of southern california, better known to senator harris and i as usc. you are a professor affiliated with both stanford university and palo alto university. you have published over 65 peer reviewed articles and have received numerous awards for your work and research and 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, one in three women and one in six 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 saying "no more," our institutions have not progressed in how they treat women who come forward.

too often, women's memories and credibilities come under assault. in essence, put on trial and forced to defend themselves and often revictimized in the process. 27 years ago, i was walking through an airport when i saw 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 36 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 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 is 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 should also refuse

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 a 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 the 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. and then yesterday, julie swetnick came forward with an experience of being at house parties with brett kavanaugh and mark judge. recounted seeing kavanaugh engage in, and i quote, abusive and physically aggressive behavior towards girls, end quote, including attempts to,

quote, remove or shift girl's clothing, end quote, not taking, quote, no for an answer, grabbing girls, quote, without their consent, end quote, and talki targeting, quote, particular girls so 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 of 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 quote, always treated women with dignity and respect, end quote. and while he's 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 he, quote, 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 on to 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 and 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 unsubstantiated 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 rise so i can swear you. now, do you swear that the testimony you're about to give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you god? thank you very much. please be seated and before you give your statement, i want to say 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 closer to you, if you please. can the whole box go a little bit closer? >> i'm trying, senator. >> i'll lean forward. okay, 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 the 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 washington, dc. 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 this school, girls at holton arms frequently met and became friendly with boys from all boy 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 and 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 pj, 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 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 bring me here today are the ones i will never forget. they have been seared into my memory and have 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 of 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 on to the bed and then brett got on top of me. he began running his hands over my body and grinding into me. i yelled, hoping that someone down stairs 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 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 emblent at times and 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. and 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, pinballing 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 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 couple's 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 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 at bethesda, maryland. my husband recalls 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 cause med to causeed me to relive the experience and

cause panic and anxiety. occasionally, i would discuss the assault in the 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 an experience with sexual assault. occasionally, i stated that my assailant was a prominent lawyer or judge but 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 16th, 2018. but until july 2018, i had never named mr. kavanaugh as my attacker outside of therapy. this changed in early july 2018.

i saw press reports stating that brett kavanaugh was on the short list of a list of very 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 returned phone call from the office of congresswoman ana eshu after mr. kavanaugh had become the nominee. i met with her staff on july 18th and with her on july 20th, describing the assault and discussing my fears about 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 eshu's office delivered a copy of my letter to

senator feinstein's office on july 30th. 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 allow the senate to consider mr. kavanaugh's serious misconduct 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 experiences 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 2018. the sense of duty that originally motivated me to reach out confidentially to the "washington post" and to ana eshu'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 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 powerful supporters. by the time of the confirmation hearings, i had resigned myself to remaining quiet and let the senate and committee 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 coworkers and left me many messages, making it clear that my name was 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 date 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 for 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 separate 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 with 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 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 a 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've 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 and at this point, i will do my best to answer your questions and request some caffeine. >> a coke or something? >> that sounds good. that would be great. >> before my five minutes of questioning, i thought that i tried 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 you're going to get a chance to answer the questions fully beyond that five minutes but when that, either dr. ford or judge kavanaugh gets done, then we immediately go to the next person. so i hope that that will be done in, and dr. ford, i'm told 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 on the coffee. >> nobody can mix up my coffee right, so you're pretty fortunate. so with that, miss mitchell, you have my five minutes to ask questions. >> good morning, dr. ford. >> hi. >> we haven't met.

my name is rachel. >> nice to meet you. >> the first thing that struck me with your statement this morning was that you were terrified and i just want to let you know that i'm very sorry. that's not right. i know this is stressful and 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 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 you're estimating. >> fair. >> we've put before you and i'm

sure you have five pieces of information, and i wanted to go over them. the first is a screen shot of a what's app 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. >> the last one sent by you is on july 10th? >> correct. >> are those three comments accurate? >> i will read them again. so there's one correction. i've misused the word bystander as an adjective. bystander means someone that is looking at an assault and the person named pj 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 down stairs and what i remember of him is he was a tall and very nice person. i didn't know him well but he was down stairs not anywhere near the event. >> okay. >> i'd like to take that word out if possible. >> 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. >> and since it's dated july 30th, did you write it on that date? >> i believe so. i was in delaware at the time. i could look at my calendar and try to figure it out. >> was it written on or about that date? >> yes, i think i traveled the 20th of july to delaware which makes sense because i wrote it from there.

>> is the letter accurate? >> let me read it. i can read fast. >> take your time.

>> 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 my purview of my memory. >> would it be fair to say there were at least four others? >> yes. >> what's the second correction? >> oh, 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. it was pushing from behind so i don't want to put that fully on him. >> ms. mitchell, i don't know if this was 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 the question? because we've got, i've got to treat everybody the same. >> i understand that. >> can i go to senator feinstein or? >> yes, sir. sorry, i didn't see the light was red. please do. >> for the benefit of dr. ford, i think she'll continue that after the five minutes there. >> okay. >> mr. chairman, i'd like to begin by putting some letters in the record. >> without objection to order. >> thank you. >> you want to tell me? >> 140 letters from friends and neighbors of the witness and a thousand female physicians across the the country.

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

type of thing. >> is that the reason for the second door, front door is 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 goog google. >> tu 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 -- my original intent, i want to remind, wras 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 and i was in a hurry to try to get the information forward but didn't quite know how 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 head today where it was headed anyway. and 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 mistook her for a student and she came up to ask me a question. and i thought that she was a student. it turned out that she was a reporter. so at that point i felt enough was enough. people were calling my colleagues at stanford and leaving messages on their voice mails and e-mail saying they knew my name. clearly, people knew my address because they were in front of my house. 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 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. so just basic memory functions. and also just the level of nor epinephrine and epinephrine in the brain that, as you know en codes memories and transmitters into the hippocampus and so the trauma-related experience is

kind of locked there, whereas other details kind of drift. >> what you're telling us is that this could not be a case of mistaken identity? >> absolutely not. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> miss 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 or i'm sorry shall the letter to senator feinstein. >> it wasn't a correction. i wanted to comment on it since we're looking at this letter that i did see mark judge once up at a safeway after the time of the attack. 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. >> so that is not a correction in your statement? >> no. >> you also wrote out a handwritten statement for the calligrapher when you took your polygraph test, is that correct? >> yes. >> i see corrections where you crossed out. so i will go on 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 -- >> 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. >> okay. and finally, was the statement

that you provided this morning, i assume that, to the best of your recollection, that that was accurate? >> this whole article is accurate? >> no, no. the statement that you made this morning. >> yes. >> 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 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. and when you say best estimate, is that based on the fact that you said you went there pretty much every day? >> uh-huh. >> is that a yes? >> yes. >> do you recall prior to

getting there -- so i'm only talking about up to the gathering. >> okay. >> 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. >> okay do you recall an expectation that brett kavanaugh would be there? >> i don't recall whether or not i expected that. >> let's talk about the gathering. from the time you arrived until right when you went up the stairs, just that period of time, okay? what was the atmosphere like at the gathering? >> mr. kavanaugh and mr. judge

were extremely inebriated. they had clearly been drinking and other people at the party had not. >> can i ask a follow-up on that. when you said it was clear that they had been drinking prior, do you mean prior to the time 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. >> okay. >> 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 they 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 attended parties later at night than i was allowed to stay out. so it was kind of a 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 with 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 is ask the fbi to investigates. it's what we've always done. let them investigate and report back to us. the same applies to the serious allegations made by deborah

ramirez and julie swetnick. let's have a nonpart sisan professional investigation and then take the time to have the witnesses testify. chairman, we were both here 27 years ago. at that time the senate failed anita hill. i said i believed her. but 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 in this hearing today, no matter what happens to this nomination, i know and i hear from so many of 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. and 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 have suggested that you were simply mixed up about who assaulted you. judge kavanaugh and the white house promoted a wild theory about a kavanaugh look alike. you immediately rejected that theory. as did the innocent man who had been called that look-alike. in fact, he sent a letter to this committee forcefully objecting that theory. i ask to enter that into the record. >> without objection. so ordered. >> how did you know brett kavanaugh and mark judge? is it possible that you would mix them up with somebody else? >> no, it is not. 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. >> but you would not mix up somebody else with brett kavanaugh, is that correct? >> correct. >> or mark judge. >> correct. >> then let's go back to the incident. what is the strongest memory you have, strongest memory of the incident? something you cannot forget. take whatever time you need. >> indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter, the uproarious laughter between the two and their having fun at my expense. >> you never forgotten that laughter? you 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 meighent enter into the 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 trauma and -- approach in questioning dr. ford. letter for another 116 members of the house asking to delay until all this has been heard. >> without objection, so ordered. >> and 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 school of behavior sciences education that lapses of memory are wholly consistent with a bigger trauma and stress of assault. i would ask that be entered. >> without objection, so ordered. >> dr. ford, i conclude with this. you do remember what happened, do you not? >> very much so. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> now, ms. mitchell for senator graham and then it's my understanding that that's where you'd like to take a break. >> does that work for you? does that work for you as well? >> we're here to accommodate you. not to accommodate us. >> i'm used to being collegial. >> miss 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 said there were four boys and two girls. when you say two girls, was that you and another oregon two other girls. >> that was me and one other girl. >> that other girl's name. >> leland. >> leland kaiser now? >> correct. >> then would it be fair to say at least p.j., brett kavanaugh, mark judge, leland ingram at the time and yourself were present and possibly others? >> and 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 the that party, too? >> no, i haven't talked with

anyone from that party. >> okay. 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 just realized that i said something that was inaccurate. i said i hadn't spoken with anyone from the party since then. i've spoken with leland. >> thank you for correcting that. i appreciate that. you've gone into detail about what happened when you went up the stairs. i don't feel 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. >> okay. you said that the music was solely coming from that room, is that correct? >> correct. >> okay. and it was turned up once the

three of you were inside that room, 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. >> okay. >> likely, since i could hear them walking down the stairs very clearly from the bathroom. >> okay. 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 about 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. i heard 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. >> your letter -- >> not understanding, i'm sorry. >> in the next sentence. let me try to clarify this. after you said other persons in the house were talking with them, the letter goes on with the 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 if this is where you were living at the time. >> where i was living at the time? >> yes. >>. >> mr. chairman, do we have a copy of these documents? >> we do not have a copy. but i presume if you want one, i can get you one. >> before the questions begin so we can follow the testimony. my staff said we should not provide the copy. >> no, we will provide the copy. >> speak plainly with me, please. >> you have another 30 seconds now because i was rudely interrupted. >> mr. chairman, senator harris, we do have a blown-up copy of

this for the members to view, if that's helpful. >> okay. i'm going to put check marks next to homes that i can confirm are the correct locations and than an x or question mark when i don't know where the people live. >> i'm only asking you to confirm if it's where you lived. >> 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. >> it's river falls. near the -- like what is the place called. the naval research center on clara barton parkway. >> was that a house or apartment? >> it was my parents' home. >> okay. >> durbin. >> 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 who -- and men who attended d.c. schools and 50 members of the yale law school faculty calling for a full fbi investigation. i ask consent to enter these into the record. >> without objection, so ordered. >> dr. ford, as difficult as this is, 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 begin to heal their wounds. by example, you have brought many families into an honest and sometimes painful dialog 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 cheap shot politicians simile for telling the truth. -- simply for tell the truth. you should know for every skur lsu charge and pathetic tweet, there are thousands of americans, 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 silence. you have 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 eyewitness 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 amit nita hill hearing, but they did not. >> he was in his bethany beach hideaway and required to testify under oath. 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 survivor cannot be expected to remember every painful detail. that's what senator leahy mentioned earlier. one question is critical. in judge kavanaugh's opening testimony, which we'll 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 some place 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 claim 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, i have not knowingly seen kavanaugh since the assault. i did see mark judge wednesday at the potomac village safeway where he was extremely uncomfortable in seeing me. would you please describe that encounter at the safeway with mark judge and what led you to believe he was uncomfortable. >> yes. i was going to the potomac villa village safeway. this is on falls and river road. i was with my mother and i was a teenager.

i wanted her to go in one door and me go in the other. 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. and i said hello to him. and his face was white and very unkftab uncomfortable saying hello back. we had previously been friendly at the times we saw each other over the previous two years, albeit not very many times. we had always been friendly with one another. i wouldn't characterize him as not friendly. he was nervous and not wanting to speak with me. 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 that 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 -- we should have investigated it. we'll take a break now for 15 minutes. we've been watching christine blasey ford for the first time under oath answering questions before the senate judiciary committee. no doubt early in this day, early in her testimony and questioning.

people are beginning to form their own opinions about her credibility and her demeanor and so on and so forth. as i bring on our panel, chuck todd and megan tally and savannah. one thing i've noted is the format. if you've watched the previously testimony where we go from republicans to democrats and now we're seeing the questioning from a seasoned prosecutor, rachel mitchell, who was hired by the republicans. clearly, she wants -- seems to be drying to trying to do a lin >> i'm frustrated as a viewer. >> they're doing political questioning. i don't know if it would have been possible to say pool together our minutes and give them to this prosecutor and let her get a little flow going. that's not what's happening. i'm sure it's frustrating for the prosecutor and the witness too. >> she's all about the facts. she's trying to drive holes in the witness's memory. you don't remember this, you said that.

it's far less effective when you can't stream a narrative. it's too choppy to follow. >> it does come down to people's impressions of her, the witness whom we have not heard from before and how she's presenting herself and this was certainly an emotional testimony. >> it was a powerful opening statement. now a lot of people want to hear how is he going to respond? >> that's the thing. you listen to christine ford. for me, the moment that will stay with me was when she described having a memory of being in that room and looking over at mark judge and having eye contact with him and asking herself, will he save me? and he didn't. i mean, it was just -- it was emotional. >> it was an emotional moment. >> the question was the most vivid memory. she said the uproarious laughter and having fun at my expense. i mean, look, if she is an

actress, she's really good. really good. >> we -- it's deeply problematic from him. >> we've pulled some of the sound from that. >> 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 hippocampus is the laughter, the uproarious laughter between the two and their having fun at my expense. >> you never forgotten that laughter? you 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. >> i think one of the things that came up at the table here. i forgot who brought it up. laughter is one of the things as a teenager -- >> that's what i thought. that has the hallmark of authenticity. is there anything more mortifying than having boys laugh at you. have a laugh at your expense. that's all when you're sizing up the credibility of a witness, it's all of these things, it's demeanor, it's speech. yes, it's can you remember details. but it's a whole constellation of other things and whether or not it bears those hallmarks and the badge of truth. that's the difficulty, that's the decision that's before senators. something like that sticks with you. because i thought when he asked that, what's going to be the indelible thing, i would say maybe the hand over her mouth. no for a teenage girl, it's the idea of boys laughing at her.

>> how about her description of running into mark judge, that was a powerful moment. her saying i went into the wrong door, by the way with the teenage going i'm experiencing that myself these days, i don't want to go into the same door as you, dad. all of a sudden running into him and her description of him. it's those little details that are giving her credibility. >> there's a question still to remember, there's another side to this. about whether it was exactly as she says. whether her experience of it now, her memly lory of it matcp with how it went downment whether her memory fills in gaps she had around certain aspects of it that is more helpful to her story and more damaging to brett kavanaugh. she's a sympathetic witness and clearly believes this happened to her. does she know all these years later? you have republican senators on

the other side who are blustering about and you've got grassley, my staff -- it's a jarring juxtaposition to hear him and then her. the question is, will they believe it amounts to anything. was this a person who is misremembering or who was what we call a -- they can walk away saying oh, was this just some guy who made a bad move and she made more of it in her head. >> the problem is brett kavanaugh has said it didn't happen at all. it leaves them in that position. >> he left himself some wiggle room or i was young and drank too much, i'm sorry if something happened. i don't think this would have reached this stage. i think it is that he set himself up to be questioned not just on his character and behavior back then but whether he lied to the committee. >> we should remind folks also, she's a psychology professor. some of her answers specifically

about her memory, let's say she's using beyond layman's terms. >> it's indelible in the hippocamp hippocampus. which you started googling. >> i come back to what chuck said, she goes the safeway a few weeks later, didn't want to go in the same room with her mom being a teenager and runs into another kid that she thinks she remembers being part of the attack. according to her story. i come back to the politics. the people watching this, other republicans and what are they thinking about the political impact of taking one side or another? they have to wait and see what judge kavanaugh does. they're going to be worried about -- >> in fairness got senators, i think they're also probably -- they have kids that are about the same age as a lot of the -- [ overlapping talking ]. >> on this, any references as kids -- this is painful to watch

as a parent of a teenager. it is a -- i wouldn't say yes, there's politics involved and i wouldn't doubt that be very curious how he responds to this, along with jeff flake. we've gotten words about how intently they've been listening. >> they're hearing things at home from constituents and hearing from their kids, their parents, their siblings or spouses. >> but their constituents so far, the republican base does not believe her or if they believe her, they don't care. i mean, they have been fired up saying this is a democrat hit job, a democratic hit job on a nominee who they had before them for 31 hours of testimony. they had these allegations in hand, they didn't raise them. they waited until the eve. she comes forward after 36 years with gaps in her memory and another woman comes forward with no corroborating witnesses and they drop that at the last minute and the avenatti hat trick the night before. they see this as a big setup of

their nominee. i've heard republicans say this may have happened to her. the proof isn't there to convince me it's brett kavanaugh. it isn't enough to scurry a supreme court appointment. >> we want to go to capitol hill right now where they're measuring reactions from senators who have the final say whether the confirmation goes forward. casey. >> i think that the conversation you've been having is the right one. we're going to have to make -- i want to go back to the three people we've been focused on. lisa murkowski, juror jeff flake. he was listening intently. he was looking pained as the statement unfolded. i got a note from a top republican aide who said everybody needs to not rush to as a resu judgment. we need to hear from judge kavanaugh. that's important.

it also says it's clear that they realize that the initial judgment of dr. ford is one of credibility and one that does not seem to bode well for judge kavanaugh ultimately sitting on the supreme court. everyone is at this point keeping their initial thoughts very close to the vest beyond, of course, the obvious understandings that we have of this partisanship. i do want to go back to this idea. the senators who have to make the decision, they're human beings, too. the decision that they make here, if they're forced to vote on this nomination is going to be one that is going to define them for years to come. and if you are especially a female senator living through this cultural moment that we are in of me too and listening to this woman who came forward, clearly traumatized, clearly emotional as she relates this story, are you really going to stand on the senate floor and

say i don't believe her, i believe him? we have to hear from him first. these are the questions going through people's minds. i can tell you there's already trepidation about judge kavanaugh heading into this hearing and standing here having the opportunity to have heard at least a little bit from her. i think that at this point, it is increasing, not decreasing. >> good perspective. none of this is easy. it's about listening. they're in a break right now. we'll come back and continue to listen. >> as a reminder, we've all watched one piece of this. we've watched an opening statement and introductory questioning of the witness. there's a judgment as to that. his credibility and his demeanor will be-sized up as well. for those who are just joining and perhaps missed it, christine blasey ford gave a prepared opening statement, one we're told she wrote herself. took about 20 minutes. we wanted to play you a portion of it. >> 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 on to the bed, then 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. 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 eicoey 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 pinballing 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 escaped that house and that brett and mark were not coming outside after me. >> that was christine blasey ford in some of her prepared opening remarks today describing the way it -- hearing for the first time from her voice. >> now, of course, we'll hear the continuing of the questioning. i get the feeling that rachel mitchell, the prosecutor who was hired by republicans hasn't even gotten past the introductions at this point. >> one way or another -- it feels like the way a lawyer would prepare a witness. you would start with some predicate things and get some stuff out of the way and it would lead up to somewhere. it's hard to know where it's leading because it's interrupted every five minutes. >> so far she's not laid a glove on christine blasey ford. >> maybe she's building up to that. >> she is a prosecutor by trade. the question is she acting in that role here now? >> look, i would just say, i get the political decision that they

made. they did not want chuck grassley, get off my lawn, questioning her. that we all get. they didn't think the five-minute thing through. this is not working for them. i mean, we've discussed this here. i almost feel like i need to rewatch it just with her questions and supplies it and cut it so you can see the continuing questions. >> during this break, they got together and said hey, what if we pool our resources. >> she was trying to say did you hear them talking as you came down the stairs. she's questioning each recollection in this opening statement, comparing it to the lie detector test and trying to get, to poke holes. i think she's setting the stage. >> that's all she's done. >> when did you hear them talking. did you hear conversations downstairs or not. could you hear them. that is not effective in this kind -- >> it isn't. again, that is legal questioning. what we're seeing is political

questioning. the legal questioning usually lay the groundwork, you get the evidence in, it adds up and you get to pull it all together for a jury in closing arguments. no one gets to pull it together for the senators. that makes it a little more difficult. >> you wonder -- the republicans who insisted on this, the witness said please don't -- do not do this -- >> they were beating up on her -- >> let's see whether rachel mitchell is building to a crescendo where she's got something. i don't think she is. what could she possibly have? unless christine ford has an issue we don't know about with this story and she's going to spring it on us, the whole defense on when rachel mitchell is out there, is memory lances. >> -- lapses. >> if she wanted to, she could say you don't remember how you got there, you don't remember one of the guys that's there, you don't know how you got home, you never said anything for 30 years.

this guy was -- there's like a million ways to do it. i'm not suggesting they do. if you wanted to go hard at an accuser like that, there's a way to do it. >> no win proposition for her. she's been brought in precisely to avoid that kind of interrogation. because of the five-minute rule, which was set -- they could have brought her in and said, a longer period of time. >> they probably could have negotiated that. at a minimum. the other part, though, democrats at some point got to look like they want to get to find out the facts, too. right now, it's been hey, we want to submit these letters. it's more of they're coming across as a support group. politically, i understand what they're doing. i think if they want this to be more credible and especially confrontational questioning with judge kavanaugh, they would have more credibility if they came across that they want to find out the truth. >> you can make the argument

that judge kavanaugh is entitled to a robust cross-examination of his accuser if we were in a courtroom of any kind. civil or criminal. he would be entitled to that. our whole system depends on the adversary nature of it and robust cross-examination. i think it speaks volumes that they chose not to do that. we'll see whether rachel mitchell goes there. to me, it suggests their minds are made up. they're not looking for a robust cross of this witness. >> not only is brett kavanaugh entitled to a cross-examination that's adversarial, it gives an opportunity to this witness. she should take on those hard questions and she probably is able to answer them in a way that may be compelling and she deserves the opportunity to say, you know why i don't remember -- >> people are out there saying, you know, if these republicans go after her or even if rachel mitchell does it, there's going to be blowback. how can you attack a woman?

>> it under scores the absurd y absurdity. >> let me finish. most women tell the truth. most women do. i believe that as someone involved in the me too movement. but not all do. the whole goal when somebody is accused is to with an open mind and in a fair setting get to the bottom of what's -- >> dr. ford continuing in the session. >> we scheduled a break for 12:05. i didn't call it at the right time. we're going to have a vote at 12:50. 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 indicated on here as belonging to your family is what all the property tax records

showed as being your address. >> okay. >> 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 perspective. so we can show the greater washington area. of course, you can see the beltway on that. the beltway area. >> okay. >> the number 3, if we could look at that. we drew a one-mile radius around the country club and then we calculated from the further -- >> mr. chairman, we don't have these documents. >> no. we're not. she showed three different documents because they depict three different things. so we'd like to see all three documents please to follow along. >> proceed, please. >> okay. looking at number -- 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. it's 6.2 and 8.2 miles. you've described this as being near the country club where 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. and the country club is about a 20-minute drive from my parents' home. >> 20-minute drive. 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. >> okay. 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 '80s. you had written in, this is one. corrections i referred to early and 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 in your prepared statement, i believe. 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. i did not drive home from that party or to that party. and once i did have my driver's

license, i liked to drive myself. >> i assume the legal driving age was 16. >> yes. >> now, you've talked about attending therapy. in your text to the "washington post" dated 7/6, so that's the very first statement we have from you, you put in there, "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. this was something that was available to you via a computer like a patient portal? >> actually, no. i was in the office of a provider. >> okay. >> she helped me go through the record to locate whether i had 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. >> okay. so it's possible that the reporter did not see these notes? >> i don't know if she -- i can't recall whether she saw them directly or if i told her what they said. >> have you shown them to anyone else besides your counsel? >> just the counsel. >> okay. would it be fair to say that brett kavanaugh's name is not listed in those notes? >> his name is no, sir not listed in those notes. >> would it be fair to say that the therapist notes say that there were four boys in the room? >> 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 wihite house? >> thank you, chairman, thank you dr. blase i 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 has 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. so both because making a sincere and investigative effort is an important consolation to the victim in that circumstance. 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 witness coming forward is to make sure that we give them a full, thorough and sincere investigation. you have met all of the standards of what i might call preliminary credibility with your initial statement. you have vivid specific and detailed recollections. something prosecutors look for. your recollections 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're willing to testify here. here you are. subject to professional

cross-examination by a prosecutor. so you've met any condition any prosecutor should expect to go forward. 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 corroborative evidence and they might find exculpatory evidence? >> i don't know what exculpatory evidence is. >> not helpful to your recollections and version of events. helpful to the accused. >> understood, yes. >> so it could go either way. >> 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. and 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 that when somebody is willing to come forward, even under those circumstances, even having been not given the modicum of courtesy and support. you've shown yourself particularly proud in doing that. the responsibility for the decision to have be i think the only background investigation in history to be stopped as derogatory information came forward belongs with 13 men. the president, director rey 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 examined and cross-examined under oath, has not been examined by the fbi tells you all you need to know about how credible this is. the 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, however long it takes, in whatever formic 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. thank 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 on september 14th, two days later, dr. ford identified herself as the victim in a post article detailing her allegations. i immediately directed my staff to investigate. september 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 24th. giving dr. ford a week to prepare her testimony and come to washington, d.c. on september 17th, committee investigative staff reached out to dr. ford and judge kavanaugh to schedule follow-up interviews with republican, 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 denied the allegations and requested a hearing as soon as possible. democratic staff refused to participate in that interview. the next day, september 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 brett at the -- in the manner described by dr. ford. and i can go on and on about that. but we got to realize that what we have done in this case all of the time you done in this case all the time you go through a background investigation by the fbi. then it comes to us, and 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. >> ms. mitchell. >> mr. chairman, i just want to point out that to support what senator whitehouse said, in the anita hill case, george bush ordered that the investigation be opened again. >> ms. mitchell will you proceed for senator lee. >> thank you, mr. chairman.