underway. stay tuned here on kpix. this is cbs news coverage of the kavanaugh hearings. i'm john dickerson with gayle king in washington. norah o'donnell is reporting from capitol hill. she'll join us in a moment. our chief legal correspondent jan crawford is with us as well. we're about to hear some of the most high-stakes congressional testimony in decades. the senate judiciary committee is about to question christine blasey ford, the california professor who claims that supreme court nominee, brett kavanaugh, sexually assaulted her during a high school party 36 years ago. t andudge today could decide the fate of the nomination that was intended to shift the supreme court to the right for decades to tall the

hearing to order. we will hear him speaking first, followed by senator diane feinstein and then blasey ford will read a prepared statement before answering questions. >> norah o'donnell is on capitol hill. norah? >> and good morning to you. dr. christine blasey ford has arrived here on capitol hill to make her testimony not only before the senate judiciary committee but before the american people. in her opening statement, she has said she's terrified but that she believes she's there to tell the truth. she also says that it is not her responsibility to weigh in on whether judge kavanaugh should be appointed to the supreme court. she says that is up for the senate to decide. but if you look at her more than 2,000-word opening statement, it's chilling in the detail that she describes in this alleged assault by brett kavanaugh when they were in high school, at two different schools. brett kavanaugh at georgetown

prep and dr. ford, who was then at an all-girls school. as you see this smaller hearing room, this is in dirksen 226. it was chosen because dr. ford and those who are working with her said they didn't want all the cameras in there. so there are only three cameras inside this room, what we call pool cameras. only seven photographers, still photographers, have been allowed inside, and very few reporters. they are trying to make this not just a more intimate setting but a more serious setting. we've also seen rachel mitchell. she's the republican outside counsel who was brought in because she's the chief of special victims division at the maricopa county attorney's office in arizona. as you may know on the senate judiciary committee on the republican side, it's all male. and the concern was that questioning a woman who has described in graphic detail an assault, that it would not look

right. so they have deferred now to a prosecutor to do the questioning. she will do the questioning on the behalf of the republicans. each democratic senator, and there are ten of them, will get five minutes each. let's go to ed o'keefe, who is right outside that hearing room. ed? >> norah, good morning to you. this marble lined hallway leads into dirksen 226. we've seen members of the committee make their way in. a few democrats stopped here to tell us they think five minutes is not nearly enough time for them to try to get to the bottom of this situation. they say they will be pressing kavanaugh for details to try to establish his -- >> we now see dr. ford for the first time. we've only seen two pictures of her up until now. one with a pair of sunglasses on and then when she got an fbi polygraph test. not by the official fbi but a former fbi agent.

that's where we heard she essentially recounted and was judged truthful in her remarks. nancy cortes is with me now. what do we know about what we'll hear from dr. ford? >> well, she's going to go into very specific detail about what she says happened to her in summer of 1982. this is, of course, a story she told "the washington post," but now she's going to be telling that story to a group of 21 senators and to the world. >> all right, gayle and john. i know you're watching this with me as well. >> it is very interesting to see her for the first time. we've only had this one picture of when she was a teenager, then the picture when she had sunglasses. we're told her husband is not in the room with her today. he stayed at home with the children. so she's seated at the table with two of her attorneys. >> yeah, her attorney is sitting next to her. we' s alyssa milano in the room, which is interesting. i'm told she was a guest of

senator diane feinstein. >> but no matter how many people are in the room, when you talk to people who have had to testify, even on matters that are nowhere within the same country as the difficult ones she's about to testify on, they talk about hearing their own voice in that huge room as they start to speak. that's just people i've talked to who have had to testify. this is someone who the whole world is watching. >> the hearing is about to begin. >> 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. kavanaugh have been through a terrible couple weeks. they and their families 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 maintain 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 32 hours in pub. 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 senators after the hearing. more than all prior supreme court nominees. throughout this period, we did not know about the ranking member's secret evidence. then only at an 11th hour on the eve of judge kavanaugh's confirmation vote did it 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 has had to address these allegations in the midst of a media circus. when i received dr. ford's letter on september the 13th, my staff and i recognized the seriousness of these allegations and immediately began our committee's investigation consistent with the way the committee has handled such allegations in the past. every step of the way the democratic side refused to participate in what should have been a bipartisan investigation. as far as i know on all of our judgeships throughout at least the last four years -- or three years, that's been the way it's been handled. after dr. ford's identity became public, my staff contacted all the individuals she said

attended the 1982 party described in "the washington post" article. judge kavanaugh immediately submitted to an interview under penalty of felony for any knowingly false statements. he denied the allegations categorically. democratic staff was invited to participate and could have asked any questions he 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 kizer. all three submitted statements to the senate under penalty of felony, denying any knowledge of the events it described by dr.

ford. dr. ford's lifelong friend, miss kizer, 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 present her allegations under oath. as you can see, the judiciary committee was able to conduct thorough investigations into allegations -- thorough investigations into allegations. some of my colleagues consistent with her stated desires to obstruct kavanaugh's nomination by any means necessary pushed

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

this or any other case reach a conclusion, period. they say he said, she said, they said, period. so when people wave an fbi report before you, understand they do not -- they do not -- they do not reach conclusions. they do not make recommendations, end of senator biden's quote. the fbi provided us with the allegations. now it's up to the senate to assess their credibility, which brings us to this very time. i look forward to a fair and respectful hearing. that's what we promised dr. ford. some of my colleagues have complained about the fact that an expert on this side is investigating sex crimes will be questioning the witness. i see no basis for complaint

other than just plain politics. the testimony we will hear today concerns allegations of sexual assault, very serious allegations. this is an incredibly complex and sensitive subject to discuss. and it's not an easy one to discuss. that is why the senators on this side of the dais believe an expert who has deep experience and training in interviewing victims of sexual assault and investigating sexual assault allegations should be asking questions. this will be a stark contrast to the grandstanding and chaos that we saw from the other side during the previous four days in this hearing process. i can think of no one better equipped to question the witnesses than rachel mitchell. miss mitchell is a career prosecutor, civil servant with decades of experience investigating and prosecuting

sex ded herareer seeking justice for survivors of sex-rela sex-related felonies. most recently, rachel was the 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's 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 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've 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 deborah ramirez and julie swetnick. my staff made eight requests, yes, eight requests, for evidence from attorneys for miss ramirez and six requests for evidence for attorneys for miss swetnick. neither attorney has made their clients available for interview. the committee can't do an investigation if attorneys are stonewalling. i hope you all understand that we have attempted to seek

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

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

>> by the way, i was going to introduce her, but if you want to, i'll be glad to have you do that. i didn't forget to do that because i would do that just as she was about to speak. >> thank you. i have to say 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. 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 attem 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 #metoo 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 credibility come under assault. in essence, they are put on trial and forced to defend

themselves and often revictimized in the process. 27 years ago i was walking through an when i saw a large group of people gathered around a 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 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 have also refused to call anyone who could speak to the evidence that would support or refute dr. ford's claim, and

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

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

about debbie ramirez, who was a student at yale with brett kavanaugh. she, too, did not want to come forward, but after being approached by reporters, she told her story. she was at a college party where kavanaugh exposed himself to her. she recalls pushing him away and then seeing him laughing and pulling his pants up. then yesterday julie swetnick came forward to say she had experiences of being at house parties with brett kavanaugh and mark judge. she recounted seeing kavanaugh engage, and i quote, in abusive and physically aggressive behavior toward girls, end quote. including attempts to, quote, remove or shift girls' clothing, end quote. not taking, quote, no for an answer, grabbing girls, quote, without their consent, end

quote, and targeting, quote, particular girls so that they could be taken advantage of, end quote. each of these stories are troubling on their own, and each of these allegations should be investigated by the fbi. all three women have said they would like the fbi to investigate. please do so. all three have said they have other witnesses and evidence to corroborate their accounts, and yet, republicans continue to blindly push forward. so today we're moving forward with a hearing and being asked to assess the credibility of brett kavanaugh. he's made several statements about how his focus was on school, basketball, service projects, and going to church. he declared that he, quote,

never, end quote, drank so much he couldn't remember what happened, and he has, quote, always treated women with dignity and respect, end quote. and while he'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, quote, he became aggressive and belligerent, end quote, when he was drunk. liz swisher, a friend of his from yale, said, and i quote, there's no medical way i can say 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. country.re for one of the mos 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 we'll consider other issues at other times. i would like to have you rise so i can swear you. do you swear that the testimony you're about to give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you god?

thank you very much. please be seated. before you give your statement, i want to say that to everybody that she has asked for -- any time you ask for a break, you get a break. any time there's something that you need you don't have, just ask us. and you can have as much time for your opening statement as you want. and just generally let us know if there's any issues. proceed, please. >> thank you, senator grassley. i think after i read my opening statement, i anticipate needing some caffeine, if that's available. >> okay. can you pull the microphone just a little bit closer to you, please? can the whole box go a little closer? >> i'm sator. no. >> okay. well, then -- >> i'll lean forward.

>> thank you. thank you. >> is this good? >> yeah. >> okay. thank you, chairman grassley and ranking member feinstein, members of the committee. my name is christine blasey ford. i'm a professor of psychology at palo alto university and a research psychologist at the stanford university school of medicine. i won't detail my educational background since it's already been summarized. i have been married to russell ford since 2002, and we have two 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 whatneto m while brett kavanaugh and i were in high school. i've described the events publicly before. i summarized them in my letter to ranking member feinstein and again in a letter to chairman grassley.

i understand and appreciate the importance of you hearing from me directly about what happened to me and the impact it has had on my life and on my family. i grew up in the suburbs of washington, d.c. i attended the holton arms school in bethesda maryland. holton arms is an all girls school that opened in 1901. during my time at the school, girls at holton arms frequently met and became friendly with boys from all boys schools in the area, including 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. clsms forme my freshman and sophomore year. it was through that connection that i attended a number of parties that brett also achther, 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 swimming and practicing diving. one evening that summer after a day of diving at the club, i attended a small gathering at a house in the bethesda area. there were four boys i remember specifically being at the house. brett kavanaugh, mark judge, a boy named p.j., and one other boy whose name i cannot recall. i do not remember all of the an.

details of how that gathering came together, but like many that summer, it was almost gathering. i truly wish i could be more helpful with more detailed answers to all of t 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 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 brett got on top of me. he began running his hands over my body and grinding into me. i yelled, hoping that someone downstairs might hear me, and i tried to get away from him, but his weight was heavy. brett groped me and tried to take off my clothes. he had a hard time because he was very inebriated and because i was wearing a one-piece bathing suit underneath my

clothing. i believed he was going to rape me. i tried to yell for help. when i did, brett put his hand over my mouth to stop me from yelling. this is what terrified me the most and has had the most lasting impact on my life. it was hard for me to breathe, and i thought that brett was accidently going to kill me. both brett and mark were drunkenly laughing during the attack. they seemed to be having a very good time. mark seemed ambivalent at times, urging brett on, and at times telling him to stop. a couple of times i made eye contact with mark and thought he might try to help me, but he did not. during this assault, mark came over and jumped on the bed twice while blrett was on top of me. the last time 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 their way down. i waited, and when i did not hear them come back up the stairs, i left the bathroom, went down the same stairwell, through the living room, and left the house. i remember being on the street and feeling an enormous sense of relief that i had escaped that house and that brett and mark were not coming outside after me. brett's assault on me drastically altered my life for a very long time. i was too afraid and ashamed to

tell anyone these details. i did not want to tell my parents that i, at age 15, was in a house without any parents present drinking beer with boys. i convinced myself that because brett did not rape me, i should just move on and just pretend that it didn't happen. over the years, i told very, very few friends that i had this traumatic experience. i told my husband before we were married that i had experienced a sexual assault. i had never told the details to anyone, the specific details, until may 2012 during a couples counseling session. the reason this came up in counseling 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 in bethesda, maryland. my husband recalls that i named my attacker as brett kavanaugh. after that may 2012 therapy session, i did my best to ignore the memories of the assault because recounting them caused me to relive the experience and caused panic and anxiety. occasionally, i would discuss the assault in an individual therapy session, but talking about it caused more reliving of the trauma, so i tried not to think about it or discuss it. but over the years, i went through periods where i thought about the attack.

i had confided in some close friends that had 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 well-qualified supreme court nominees. i thought it was my civic duty to relay the information i had about mr. kavanaugh's conduct so that those considering his

nomination would know about this assault. on july 6th, i had a sense of urgency to relay the imation 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 that mr. kavanaugh had

sexually assaulted me. i was very conflicted as to whether to speak out. on july 9th, i received a return phone call from the office of congresswoman 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 the 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 anyo's fyo theersona f privacy that we have faced since my name became public. in a letter dated august 31st, senator feinstein wrote she would not share the letter without my explicit consent, and i appreciated this commitment. sexual assault victims should be able to decide for themselves when and whether their private experience is made public. as the hearing date got closer, i struggled with a terrible choice. do i share the facts with the senate and put myself and my family in the public spotlight, or do i preserve our privacy and allow the senate to make its decision without knowing the full truth of his past behaviors? i agonized daily with this

decision throughout august and september 2018. the sense of duty that originally motivated me to reach out confidentially confidential feinstein was always there. but my fears it of the consequences of speaking out started to exponentially increase. during august 2018, the press reported that mr. kavanaugh's confirmation was virtually 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 letting the committee and the senate

make their decision without knowing what mr. kavanaugh had done to me. once the press started reporting on the existence of the letter i had sent to senator feinstein, i faced mounting pressure. reporters appeared at my home and at my workplace, demanding information about the letter in the presence of my graduate students. they called my bosses and co-workers and left me many messages, making it clear that my name would inevitably be released to the media. i decided to speak out publicly to a journalist who had originally responded to the tip i had sent to "the washington post" and who had gained my trust. it was important for me to describe the details of the assault in my own words. since september 16th, the 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 from our friends and our community. at the same time, my greatest fears have been realized, and the reality has been far worse than what i expected. my family and i have been the target of constant harassment and death threats, and i've 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 together and at times separated, with the help of security guards. this past tuesday evening, my work e-mail was hacked and messages were sent out trying to recant my description of the sexual assault. apart from the assault itself, these past couple of weeks have been the hardest of my life. i've had to relive this trauma in front of the world, and i have seen my life picked apart by people on television, on twitter, other social media, other media, and in this body who have never met me or spoken with me. i have been accused of acting out of partisan political ve those way thatme a 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 have never been questioned by a prosecutor, and i will do my best. pee to engagecth each of you. ml at this point, i will do my best to answer your questions and would request some caffeine. >> a coke or something? >> that sounds good.

that would be great. thank you. thank you. >> thank you very much. before i use my five minutes of questioning, i thought that i'd try to remind my colleagues and in this case miss mitchell as well that the five minutes -- the way i have traditionally done -- if you ask a question before your time runs out, and even though you go over your time, as long as you aren't filibustering, i'll let you ask your question. and i'm going to make sure that both dr. ford and judge kavanaugh, as chairman of the committee, i know that they're going to get a chance to answer the questions fully beyond that five minutes. we immedialy goext i hope that .

and dr. ford, i'm told that you want to break right now. if you do, that's fine. >> i'm okay. i got the coffee. thank you very much. i think i can proceed and sip on the coffee. >> nobody can mix up my coffee right. so you're pretty fortunate. so now with that, miss mitchell, you have my five minutes to ask questions. >> good morning, dr. ford. we haven't met. my name is rachel mitchell. >> nice to meet you. >> i just wanted to tell yo t thg that struck me from your statement this morning is that you were terrified. i just wanted to let you kno so. that's not right. i know this is stressful, so i

would like to set forth some guidelines that maybe will alleviate that a little bit. if i ask you a question that you don't understand, please ask me to clarify it or ask it in a different way. when i ask questions, sometimes i'll refer back to other information you've provided. if i do that and i get it wrong, please correct me. >> okay. >> i'm not going to ask you to guess. i know it was a long time ago. if you do estimate, please let me know you're estimatedining, ? >> fair. >> we've put before you and i'm sure you have copies of them anyway, five pieces of information. the first is a screenshot of a whatsapp texting between you and somebody at "the washington post." do you have that in front of you? >> yes. >> the first two texts were sent

by you on july 6th. is that correct? >> correct. >> the last one sent by you was on july 10th. >> correct. >> okay. are those three comments accurate? >> i will read them. so there's one correction. >> okay. >> i've misused the word bystander as anned adjective. bystander means someone that is looking at an assault. the person named p.j. was not technically a bystander. i was writing very quickly with a sense of urgency. i would not call him a bystander. he was downstairs. what i remember of him is he was a tall and very nice person. i didn't know him well, but he downstairs, not anywhere near the event. >> okay. thank you. >> i'd like to take that word out if it's possible.

>> okay. thank you for clarifying that. the second is the letter that you wrote to senator feinstein dated july 30th of this year. did you write the letter yourself? >> i did. >> and since it's dated july 30th, did you write it on that date? >> i believe so. it sounds right. i was in delaware at the time. i could look into my calendar and try to figure that out. >> was it written on or about that date? >> yes, yes. i traveled, i think, the 26th of july to delaware. so that makes sense because i wrote it from there. >> okay. is the letter accurate? >> i'll take a minute to read it. i can read f

>> okay. so i have three areas that i'd like to address. >> okay. >> in the second paragraph where

it says these occurred in a suburban area maryland home 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. >> okay. 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. i was pushed from behind. i don't want to put that fully on him. >> okay. >> miss mitchell, i don't know whether this is fair for me to interrupt, but i want to keep people within five minutes. is that a major problem for you in the middle of a same. >> i to senator

feinstein? >> yes, sir. i'm sorry. i didn't see the light was red. please do. >> senator feinstein. >> we're going to come back to that. >> okay. >> for the benefit of dr. ford, i think she'll continue that after the five minutes here. >> okay. >> mr. chairman, i'd like to begin by putting some letters in the record. >> without objection, so ordered. >> thank you. >> how many, do you want to tell me? >> 140 letters from friends and neighbors of the witness and a thousand female physicians across the >> i want to thank you very much for your testimony. i know how very, very hard it is. why -- why have you held it to

yourself all these years? as you look back, can you indicate what the reasons are? >> well, i haven't held it in all these years. i did disclose it in the confines of therapy, where i felt like it was an appropriate place to cope with the events. >> can you tell us what the events had on you? >> i think the sexual assault varies by person. for me, personally, phobia and ptsd symptoms are what i'm coping with. >> is that the reason for the second door, front door thing, claustrophobia? >> correct, my house does not

lookesthetasin htond do? students.pce tot google ind >> you can 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, especially friendships with boys. and i had academic problems. >> what were the -- when we spoke, and it became very clear

how deeply you felt about this, and the need that you wanted to remain confidential, can you talk a little bit about that? >> yes. so, i was watching carefully throughout the summer -- well, my original intent, i just want to remind, was to communicate with everyone when it 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 to do that. however, once he was selected, and it seemed like he was popular and it was a sure vote. i was calculating daily that the risk benefit for me of coming forward and wondering whether i would just be jumping in front of a train that was headed to where it was headed anyway. and that i would just be personally annihilated. >> how did you decide to come

forward? >> ultimately, because reporters were sitting outside of my home and trying to talk to my dog through the window, to calm the dog down. and a reporter appeared in my graduate classroom. and i mistook her for a student. and she came up to ask me a question, i thought she was a student. and it turned out she was a reporter. so, at that point, i felt like enough was enough. people were calling my colleagues at stanford. and leaving messages on their voice mails and e-mails saying they knew my name. clearly, people knew mile address because they were out in front of my house. and it just -- the mounting pressure seemed like it was time to just say what i needed to say. >> i'm sorry. 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 from you 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. i just -- basic memory functions, and also by level of epinephrine in the brain that you know sort of encodes, encodes memories into the hip campus. so what you're telling me, this cannot 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, the letter to senator feinstein. >> it wasn't a correction. but i just made the comment on it, since we were looking at this letter, that i did see mark judge once at the potomac village safeway after the time of the attack. and it would be helpful with anyone's resources to figure out when he worked there. 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 time line as 0 when the attack occurred. >> okay. so, that is not a correction in your statement? >> it's just -- no. >> okay.

you also wrote out a handwritten statement for the polygraph test, is that correct? >> yes. >> i see corrections on that where you crossed out. so, i will go on to "the washington post" article. >> okay. >> that was originally published on september 16th of this year. >> should i just not look at this for accuracy? are we just going to -- >> we may come back to us 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 then finally, was the statement that you provided this morning, i assume that to the be best of your recollection that that was accurate? >> that this whole article is

accurate? >> no, no, the state that you made this morning. >> yes. >> okay. i want to talk to you about the day that this happened leading up to the gathering. >> okay. >> in your statement this morning, have you told us everything that you remember about the day leading up to that? >> yes. >> let me ask just a few questions to make sure that you 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. >> and when you say best estimate, that based on the fact that you said you went there pretty much every day. >> uh-huh. >> is that a yes? >> yes. >> okay. do you recall prior to getting there -- so, i'm only talking prior to the gathering, did you have anything to drink? >> not at all. >> were you on any sort of medication? >> none. >> do you recall knowing, before

you went, who was going to be at that gathering? >> i recall that -- expecting that mark judge and leland would be at that gathering. >> do you recall an expectation that brett kavanaugh would be there? >> i don't recall whether or not i expected that. >> okay. >> now, let's talk about the gathering up from the time you arrived till 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 prior. and the other people at the party were not. >> can i ask you just to follow up on that, when you said it was clear that they had been drinking prior, do you mean prior to the time 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. i recall -- i can sketch a floor plan. i recall that it was a sparsely furnished, fairly modest living room. and it was not really a party, like the news has made it sound. it was not. 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 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 ano. >> senator leahy. >> dr. ford, thank you for being here. mr. chairman, the way to make this inquiry truly credible is to do what we've always done when new information about nominating comes to light. to use your word this morning, you want to reach the truth. the easy way to do that, ask the fbi to investigate. that's what we've always done. let them investigate, report back to us. the same applies to the serious allegation made by deborah ramirez and julie swetnick. let's have a nonpartisan professional investigation. and then take the time to have these witnesses testify. chairman, you and i were both here 27 years ago.

at that time, the senate failed anita hill. i said i believed her. but i'm concerned we're doing a lot less for these three women today. that's my personal view. now, 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 own state of vermont, there are many 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 senators have suggested you were simply mixed up about who assaulted you. and now judge kavanaugh in the

white house even promoted a wild theory about a kavanaugh look-alike. you immediately rejected that theory. as did the innocent who had been called that look-alike. in fact, he sent a letter to this committee forcefully objecting that observed theory. i'd ask to enter that into the record. >> not objected to. >> now, how did you know brett kavanaugh and mark judge? and is it possible that you had mixed them up with somebody else? >> no, it is not. and the person that was blamed for the incident is actually the person who introduced me to them originrolum country club. and i don't want to talk about him. because i think it's unfair that he is the person that introduced me to them. >> but you -- you would not mix up somebody else with brett kavanaugh, is that correct? >> correct. >> or mark judge? >> correct.

>> well, then, let's go back to the incident. what is the strongest memory you have, strongest memory of the incident. something that you cannot forget. take whatever time you need. >> indelible in the hypocampus is the laughter between the two, and they're having fun at my expense. >> you've never forgotten that laughter, them laughing at you? >> they were laughing at each other. >> and you were the object of the laughter? >> i was, you know, underneath one of them, while the two laughed. the two friends having a really good time with one another.

>> let me enter into the record, the national task force of domestic violence. >> without objection. >> with the house of representatives urging the committee to use the ntf's trauma-informed approach in questioning dr. ford. and a letter from another 116 members of the house asking to delay this until all this has been heard. >> without objection, it's ordered. >> and dr. ford at times has been criticized for what she doesn't remember from 36 years ago. we have numerous experts including the study by the u.s. army military police school behavior, science and educatioe, lapses of memory are wholly

consistent with assault. i ask that be entered. >> without objection, so ordered. >> and dr. ford, you do remember what happened,o you not? >> very much so. >> thank you. thank you. >> now, miss 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 as well? >> we're here to accommodate you. >> oh, thank you. >> not accommodate us. >> i neused 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 say there were four boys and two girls. when you say two girls, was that you and another, or was that two other girls? >> that was me and one other girl. >> and that other girl's name. >> leland. >> leland keyser now? >> correct. >> so, 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 that party, too? >> no, i haven't talked with anyone from that party. >> okay. >> now, you've been detailed about what happened once yir an

need to go through that again -- i'm sorry, go ahead. >> i'm sorry, i just realized that i said something that was inaccurate. i said i spoken with anyone from the party since that day. i've spoken with leland. >> thank you for correcting that. i appreciate that. you've gone into detail about what happened once you went up the stairs. so, i don't feel like it's necessary to go over those things again. >> okay. thank you. >> have you told us everything that you do remember about it? >> i believe so, but if there are other questions, i can attempt to answer them. >> you said that the music was solely coming from that room. is that correct? >> correct. >> okay. and it was turned up once the three 6 you weof you were insid room, is that correct? >> yes. >> at some point, do you recall it being turned down? >> i don't remember if it was turned down, once i was leaving the house, i don't remember. >> okay. >> likely, since i could hear

them walking down the stairs very clearly from the bathroom. >> okay. >> and the bathroom was -- the door was closed when you heard this, is that correct? >> i could hear them very clearly hitting the walls, going down the stairwell. >> okay. in fact, in your letter, you said that they went down the stairs and they were talking with other people. >> uh-huh. >> in the house. >> correct. >> were you able to hear that conversation? >> i was not able to hear that conversation but 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 there was a social gathering people were talking, i don't know. i could hear them talking as they went down the stairwell. they were laughing. >> in your letter, you wrote

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

time? >> yes. >> okay. >> mr. chairman, do we have a copy of these documents? >> we do not have copies. if you want one, we can get you one. >> yes, before the questions begin, so we can follow the testimony. >> okay. my staff says that we should not provide the copy -- >> no, we will provide the copy. >> well, speak plainly with me, please. >> sure. i'd like to see what she's looking at. >> yeah. you have another 30 seconds now because i was rudely interrupted. >> okay. mr. chairman, senator harris, we do have a blown-up copy of this for 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 then an "x" or question mark

when i don't know where these people live. >> i'm only asking you to confirm if that map accurately confirms where you were living at the time. >> where i live. i can't see the street name but i'm happy to refer to the address or neighborhood. >> okay. could you tell us that? >> yes, it's river falls. >> okay. >> near the -- like -- what is the place called? the naval research center on clara barton parkway. >> was that at a house or apartment? >> it was at my parents' home. >> okay. >> senator durbin. >> mr. chairman, i ask consent to the record letters of support for dr. ford from the classmates at holton-arms school. 1200 alumni. 195 colleagues and mentors. 1400 women who attended d.c. schools and 15 members of the yale school faculty who are calling for a full fbi investigation. i ask for consent to enter these

into the order. >> without objection, so ordered. >> dr. ford, i want you to know that your courage coming forward has given countless americans to face their own life-shattering past and begin to heal their wounds. by example, you have brought many families into an honest and painful dialogue that should have occurred a long time ago. i'm sorry what this has done to you and your family, no one, no one should face death threats by cheap shot politicians. you should know by every pathetic tweet there are thousands of women and men who believe you, thank you for your courage. watching your experience, it's no wonder that many sexual assault survivors hide their past. you have absolutely nothing to gain by bringing these facts to

the senate judiciary committee. the fact that you're testifying here today, terrified, though as 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 anita hill hearing, but they did not. mark judge should be subpoenaed from this bethany being hideaway, and required to testify under oath, but he has not. judge kavanaugh, if he truly believes there's no evidence, no witnesses that can prove their case, should be joining us and demanding a thorough fbi investigation, but he is 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 has mentioned earlier. one question is critical. in judge kavanaugh's pe o nithe 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 sexual assaulted by some person in some place at some time. last night, the republican staff of this committee released to the media a time line that shows that they've interviewed two people who claim they were the ones who actually saltassaulted. i'm asking you to address this

new defense of mistaken identity. dr. ford, with what degree of certainty do you believe that brett kavanaugh assaulted you? >> 100%. >> 100%. in the letter that you sent to senator feinstein, you wrote, i have not knowingly seen kavanaugh since the assault. i did see mark judge once at the potomac village safeway where he was extremely uncomfortable seeing me. would you please describe that encounter with mark judge and what led you to believe he was uncomfortable? >> yes, i was going to the potomac village safeway at the corner of falls and river road. i was with my mother, i was a teenager, so 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 -- looked like he was working there.

and arranging the shopping carts. and i said hello to him. and his face was white and very uncomfortable saying hello back. and we had previously been friendly at the times that 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 just nervous and not really 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, there were 45 days this committee could have been investigating this situation. and her privacy would have been protected. so, something happened here in between, on your side, that the whole country -- well, not the whole country should have known about it -- no, not know about it. we should have investigated it. we'll take a break now for 15 minutes. >> and that concludes the first round of questioning and they're taking a short break here. dr. christine blasey ford has been describing this night in very detailed moments. gayle king is of course, here. jan crawford, jan, let's start with you, what was your takeaway from this first round?

>> well, when we first saw her, it was her demeanor and voice. >> me, too, jan, it's so girlish. i was not expecting that when you're just looking at her. the tone and tenor of her voice. and even her mannerisms and the way she interacts with the committee seems very girlish as well. >> and moving away, her demeanor, her testimony that she read from her statement and the responses to the questions i think it's very interesting to see how the republican questioner is handling her. she's building a case, almost. these methodically taking her through the events of the day. then you have the democratic senators that are going straight for anything that they think might prove herbi p questions and fronting what may be the defenses fromup kavanaugh which is of course, you remember it was him. >> all of them have in their first question asked, how can youright. >> they've asked it in three

different ways. how can you be sure, maybe it was somebody else? what level of specificity do you have, senator durbin asked. she said 100%. >> and they're fronting that. they're defusing what they anticipate is something that she, miss mitchell is trying to build. >> it's interesting when she's building the case, the democrats come at us with a wall of emotion. the thing that she said, she had a comment about the thing that affected her the most. i loved senatorley. i was very strk pat byri h is question when he said to her, what is it that has stuck out ir in m yothe rdesponse to that is powerful -- do we have that clip. >> i think we have 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. >> i thought that was a very powerful statement coming from her. john. >> that's absolutely right. when she talks about the hippocampus, she's a professor of psychology. she has from time to time talked about the way the brain works. some of the testimony, how can you be so specific about some things and unspecific about others. she's tutoring in the brain science. and she's explaining i think quite meticulous saying this is the very limit of my memory and this is what i don't know about and being so particularly detailed. what strikes me there, one of the claims by her is this is a last-minute opposition by the democrats. nobody could clare out this st

neai suilmad deded itta up for purp minute. >> and the development overnight that two other men have come forward that said, listen, it wasn't brett kavanaugh and mark judge. it was us. and she's been asked a couple times, how can you be so 'sre.s. they're putting that out there because they anticipatered t sh. i think what we see next is miss mitchell trying to take her meth methodically through the day. and now people are thinkg there's an uh-huh moment where people are thinking, or is there one? >> jan, is he does seem to be leading us to something? or is she? she seems to be going somewhere? i'm not quite sure where. i'm thinking is she trying to

catch her on something, trying to revive her memory saying this time you said that and now you're saying this. >> and the politics hanging over this and infusing this whole thing. let's see if we c take a look at what dr. ford said in her opening state about the political angle here. >> i have been accused of acting out of part that san political movie ti motives. those who say that do not know me. i'm an independent person and i'm no one's pawn. my motivation coming forward was to be helpful and provide facts about how mr. kavanaugh's actions have damaged my life. so you can take into serious consideration, as you make your decision about how to proceed. it is not my responsibility to determine whether mr. kavanaugh deserves to sit on the supreme court. my responsibility is to tell you the truth.

>> there she was, recognizing but sayi, cleay, i aical speaking in my a ownos voice. >> but she also made it clear, though, she does not want to be here. the only reason she's here is because the media has discovered who she is. i have to say the media done sound so great saying they bombarded her house. talking to the dog through the window. they showed up in her class. someone who she thought was a graduate student asking her questions. they called her colleagues. th contacted her parents. she felt once she was bombarded like that and exposed that she felt she had to sit up. >> let's bring norah in on capitol hill. she's been watching every turn ever this as well. norah, what do you take away what we see so far? >> i think, gayle, you hitfr th nail on the head there, she called it her civic duty

multiple times. and she was conflicted coming forward. that she wanted to remain private. but i think specifically on the question of credibility, which we have talked about from the very beginning. because there is no contemporaneous evidence at the time. this is a question of credibility. so, that's why you see the democrats questioning so pointed on that. and her answers, also specific. where she refers to physiological evidence when she mentioned indelible in the hippocampus is the laugh sistte when asked are you sure it was brett kavanaugh. yes. and the level of neural epinephrine in the brain. and saying this can be true,

because that is what we know about trauma. that it createst brndn aurths this idea of credibility. and how she remembers it so clearly. and perhaps those who were not there may not remember it clearly. nancy cordes and i have been sitting side by side, watching all of it and the center of this witness. >> and there was a fascinating moment, norah, where she was asked about this notion of mistaken identity which some conservatives have pushed. at one point, a conservative, judicial activist even named someone on social media who may have been perpetrator instead. she said, no, you know how i know it's not that person, becauses who the person that introduced me to brett kavanaugh and mark judge in the first place. >> that was news. >> that was news. it's the reason every single democrat is asking her, are you sure. at the end of the day, all this comes down to is, are there a

handful of republicans that believe her account rather than judge kavanaugh's. and that is the main focus, at least for the democrats. >> it is interesting, gayle and john, too, when you look at what has happened this morning. the republican senators, and they're all males on the senate judiciary committee, except for senator grassley, have thus far, remained silent. >> that's right. >> they set it up that way, by bringing in a female prosecutor to question her. both norah and nancy are talking about credibility and senator murkowski said this, we're now in a place on judging whether or not judge kavanaugh is qualified, it's whether or not a woman is to be believed. and when you look at dr. ford, seems like many people, getting a reaction on twitter, people reaching out saying she's coming across very credibly. what do you say, jan? >> absolutely. but i think we have to remember,

that's what we expected. i mean, i think we expected her to come across as credible. and whether or not you doubt the veracity of her claims, i haven't seen anyone suggesting that she just made this up now to do in kavanaugh. >> i don't think anybody thought she would make it up. but it about your presentation. and the fact -- you can tell she's extremely nervous even before she started in talking. >> i do think implicit in of the claims is to plant the notion that this is concocted, helter-skelter of a nomination. >> yes, but it's hard to kind of make that argument watching her testify now with the demeanor he as like -- you can see her in that house in 1982. you can picture her as that 15-year-old. >> yes, i think so. >> but as we kind of -- this is only the beginning of this hearing. i think we have to keep in mind, we have a long way to go today. >> yes.

>> and if you recall, anita hill started testifying in 1991, people were shocked supporting justice thomas, that she looked credible. that she came across as very believable. i think we have to listen -- as we will, there's a long way to go. >> does that take us then, jan, back to this initial question which is where do you start out in addressing these questions? in the anita hill/clarence thomas case, where they started out is sort of believe the man. you have presorted it in your world view. now the world view is changing and is changing as we speak, almost in this very moment. and therefore, when you're taking in this information, does it become all about whether you listen to women. which means it really isn't about the facts of that night, it's about this large cultural question whether women should be heard. and that this then becomes a verdict on that, rather than what happened that specific

night. >> and ed o'keefe is standing outside of the hearing room?>> reporting that we have in the hallway outside of the room. chairman grassley and the republicans along with ms. mitchell, the prosecutor are in another room. as he went in, chairman grassley was asked what he makes of it thus far. he said, quote, i know we have to take her very seriously. they're all in there a waiting her taking this break. we have details from what was going on in the room while dr. ford was testifying and answering. remember, reporters can't be in there in large numbers because it's a smaller room. we all have producers in there who are sending out notes as it happens. and there's no cutaway camera to show you the reaction of the people. when dr. ford was describing the alleged incident. several republican senators leaned forward in their chair as

she was describing jeff flake looked like he was. t struggling, sad and disgusted. flake constan hnn h yootl lhandki theng prosecutor listened intently, took notes an was reading over notes on her desk when patrick leahy of vermont said he is, quote, inspired by your courage to dr. ford, that caused emotion for people in the roompy we no that the actress alisyssa milano is here in the room. and she took a tissue up to her eyes. we expect tmites. a 15-minute break on capitol hill usually turns into about a 25-minute break. so, don't be surprised if it stretches a little longer. as jan said pple up here expect this is going to go most of the afternoon. >> ed o'keefe, we thank you very much.

alyssa milano very prominent in the me too movement. let's go back to norah. >> let's just underscore what has happened. jan is right to point out that this is a long hearing and to watch both sides of thislr chr ford has said she's 100% sure that brett kavanaugh sexual assaulted her. and that's something that later this afternoon we're going to hear brett kavanaugh deny. the issue of credibility and who people believe all this is about. there is no evidence. tere's no contemporaneous evidence. and to those who say that no one has doued her account, that's just not true. now, those close to kavanaugh sayin maybe assed but it wasn't brett kavanaugh. but there have been some republicans on capitol hill who suggested she made it up, right, nancy? >> and that she had a motivation

for lying, norah. we had senators tell us all week that perhaps she had help making up this story. i asked senatoratch o hrr r hmin yesterday. when you say this is a smear campaign, are you implying not that she's mistaken but that she's lying. and he said, well, a lot of people feel that way. and he said it doesn't reflect very well on these women who have come forward. so, clearly, there has been an effort among some republicans to undermine their credibility and their motivations. and so the question is, after seeing her in this courtroom, or in this hearing room, that sometimes feels like a room courtroom, they do change their strategy. >> there was something tha senator feinstein said in her opening state that i tweeted out and characterizes how they see did. she said this is not a trial for dr. ford. this is a job interview for brett kavanaugh. and it is a job interview for ware.kavanaugh.es at'shetht tha

so, the last set of hearings were about this judicial jurisprudence, right? how he might rule. satecharacter.ding deb i we might know how he might rule, rule in the past. today is about his character. and how, perhaps, he might have acted in high school and college may shine a light on what kind of perso is and whether he should sit on then h highest co of the land. but dr. ford has come across as very credible. >> and do two republicans out of belieli r this iepsub disqualifying, beca if they do, and they say they're going to vote no, assuming all democrats vote no as wedoesav v. >> so senator susan collins and senator lisa murkowski is who you're talking about what do we

know what they're saying listening to dr. ford? >> kw lisa murkowski has expressed some concern about the lack of an investigation. agency you noknow, they're adamt about conducting an investigation. it's very polarized just like the rest of congress. they have pulled back on the absence of an investigation. she has said maybe that's not a good idea. setorna dge repeatedly referenced in this committee, has not been subpoenaed. she wants to know why no one has tried to speak with him under oath or in some other type of setting, rather than taking his word for it in a letter that he doesn't remember anything. and then there are other republicans. you know, there are republicans who have come out t'season coul shaspe now and say, you know, i've got new information, i've changed my

answer this. she said she's 100% sure it was him. what does he say in response to that? >> you're right, that has been put out there that was mistaken identity. and the news this morning that two men had called into the republicans and said it was actually me. we spoke to senator lindsey graham this morning. and he called one of them a crazy loo. he said i don't believe them. he said this stuff comes in all the time. these are anonymous people calling in stuff. even senator graham said i do not believe they were the men with the mistaken identity. >> kavanaugh knows a lot of the senators on this committee and has known them for a decade or more. he's a sitting judge. he's well-known in legal circles here in washington, d.c. and well respected. and on that basis, they have been saying for a couple weeks

w.lihim, know him, i can't see him doing anything like this. and after all of this is over, no matter how credibly she comes across, assuming he does, too, they may say, you know what, i still think that he's telling the truth. >> i think one other thing, just as we talk about what's happening here in the united states senate and just take a step back and what's happening around the country. because even outside of this hearing room, you have hundreds of young women watching this, streaming on their phones. and reports that we've seen from outside, some of them crying. that women who have experienced sexual assault themselves who have friends and family members are as viewing this in a different type of lens because didn't report it in the past. that's why we talked about this as not only sor of so many peope glued into these hearings today. because it is the question of credibility and who to believe. and the fact that 36 years later, dr. ford felt, in her

words, her civic duty to air saul of this. and she seems she's returned from this break. and let's return to the hearing room -- >> -- 12:05. we're going to have a vote at 12:40. so, would it be possible for you from now until 12:40 without a break? >> yes. >> okay. now, it is senator cornyn's time. so, proceed, miss mitchell. >> thank you, senator. i have a blowup here to my right of the map that was shown to you. the address that's indicated on here as belonging to your family is what all of the property tax records showed as being your address. >> okay. >> just to put it in perspective, i'd like to show u a further 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. >> and then number 3, if we can look at that. we drew a one-mile radius around the country club. and then we calculated from the furthest -- >> mr. chairman, again, we don't have these doubts. documents. no, we're not, that's why she showed three different documents because they depict three different things. so, we'd like to see all three documents so we can 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 countr.and the theest point. you can see it's 6.2 and, of course, 8.2 miles. >> uh-huh. >> and you described this hse w.

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. >> okay. >> and the country club is about -- a 20-minute drive from my parents' home. >> a 20-minute drive. >> uh-huh. >> and of course, i've marked as the crow flies. would it be fair to say that somebody drove you somewhere, either to the party or home from the party? >> correct. >> okay. >> 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 earlier '80s. >> uh-huh. >> in your polygraph statement you said it was high school

'80s. and it was in your correction early and you crossed that out. later in your letter to "the washington post," you were more specific, you believed it occurred summer of 1982 and end of your sophomore year. >> yes. >> you said that as well, i believe in your prepared state. how are you able to nail 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. so, i'm just using memories of when i got my driver's license. i was 15 at the time, and 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. so -- >> i assume the legal driving age was 16? >> yes. >> okay. now, you've talked about attending therapy. in your text to "the washington

post" dated 7/6 -- >> uh-huh. >> -- so, that's the very first statement we have from you. you put in there, quote, have therapy records, talking about it. >> uh-huh. >> i want to make sure i understand that. did you already have your therapy records at that time? >> i had looked at them online to see if they existed, yes. >> okay. so this was something that was available to you via a computer, like a patient portal? >> actually, no, it was in the office of a provider. >> okay. >> she helped me go through the record to locate whether i had record of this conversation that i had remembered. >> did you show a full or partial set of those marriage therapy records to "the washington post"? >> i don't remember. i remember summarizing for what

they said. 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 -- i can't recall it if she saw them directly or if i just told her what they said. >> okay. 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 not listed in those notes. >> would it also be fair to say that the therapist notes that we've been talking about say that there were four boys in the room? >> it describes the sexual assault. and it says erroneously four boys. so the therapist has got the content wrong. >> and you corrected that to "the washington post" reporter, correct? >> correct.

>> senator whitehouse. >> thank you, chairman. thank you dr. blasey ford. a lot of people are proud of you today. from a prosecutor's eye view, one of the hardest things that we have to do is to speak to somebody who's come forward with an allegation of sexual assault. and let them know that we can't provide the evidence to go forward to trial. it's a hard day for the prosecutor to do that. and, so, both because making a sin ne sincere and thorough and investigative effort is such a congre consolation to the victim in that circumstance and because of what you're obliged to do professionally, sincere and thorough investigation is critical to a prosecutor in the world. it may be the most basic thing

that we owe a victim or witness coming forward, is to make sure 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 that a prosecutors and lawyers look for. and you're 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 could expect to go forward. and yet, there has been no sincere or thorough

investigation of your claims. you specifically asked for an fbi investigation, did you not? >> yes. >> and are you aware that when the fbi begins investigating, they might find corroborative evidence and they might kind exculpatory evidence. >> i don't know -- >> it might go either way? >> yes. >> so you're 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. >> and as we know, they didn't.

and 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 motel to apologize to you for that. and to report to anybody who might be listening, that when somebody's willing to come forward, even under those no the modicum of courtesy and support of a proper investigation, you've shown

yourself particularly proud in doing that. and the responsibility for the decision to have this be, i think, the only background investigation in history to be stopped as derogatory information came forward. belongs with 13 men, the president, director wray 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 interviewed by the fbi, tells you all you need to know about how credible this performance is. the very bare minimum ofrson whd is sincere and thorough investigation. and you've been denied that. and i will make a personal pledge to you here that however long it takes in whatever form i

can do it, whenever it's possible, i'll 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. >> since it's come up so many times, i'd like to comment. "the new yorker" numbpublished anonymous account of such allegations september 14th. two days later, dr. ford, herself, as the victim inhe 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 the 17th, the

committee investigative staff reached out to dr. ford and judge kavanaugh to schedule follow-up interviews with republican and democratic investigators. judge kavanaugh accepted the opportunity to speak to investigators understand criminal penalty. dr. ford declined. in his interview september 17th, judge kavanaugh denied the allegations and requested a hearing as soon as possible. democratic staff refused to participate in that inte the next day, september 18th, committee investigating staff contacted mark judge, requesting an interview and two other alleged partygoers suggesting an interview. mark judge said under penalty, denying the allegation described by dr. ford and states that he never saw in the manner scdy dr. ford. and i can go on and on about that. but we got to realize that what we have done in this casese, of

all of 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. besides -- >> mr. chairman -- >> -- rear responding to dr. forwards to tell her story that's why we're here. >> mr. chairman. >> -- ms. mitchell. >> i want to point out to support what senator whitehouse said in the a teet a hill case george bush ordered the investigation be opened again. >> ms. mitchell, will you proceed for senator lee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. dr. ford, the washington post reported in their september 16th article that you did show them therapist notes is tha