credibility there is of the allegations and the one most sensational by the client of mr. avenatti is making claims that apparently our colleagues are embarrassed to say publicly, because this is a partisan circus and not about substance, but it is about smears. >> can i ask the senator if he can sum up. the reason i have done that is because i would like to give everybody a chance to speak. >> this committee has given dr. ford and judge kavanaugh full and fair opportunity to lay out their views. i will say unfortunately, the conduct of the democratic colleagues, et has been clear that this is all about politics, and all about delaying this confirmation until after the election, hoping that they win

the senate in the election and keeping this supreme court seat vacant until 2021. every democratic member of the committee said they opposed judge kavanaugh before a single thing started and not only that, this allegation, the ranking member of this committee had nit writing on july 309, and if that had been reported to the committee chairman, this committee has a process to investigate it and a process to investigate that is confidential and the fbi could have participated investigating starting back on july 30th that we could have had a hearing that is closed, and that is not dragging either of these individuals through the mud. that is the way this process should have worked. the testimony yesterday from dr. ford is that the only people who had copieses of the letter were herself, her lawyers and represent e shoo -- eshoo and

the members of the committee. and so that makes it possible that the letter was leaked by either the two democratic members of congress or their staff or to someone else who they gave it f. four of them have it, and two did not give it then the other two are the only possible sources, and that unfortunately demonstrates a cynicism, a willingness to smear dr. ford if it helps to politically delay this nomination. so i think that we have an obligation to be fair, to be impartial and to listen to evidence and walg the evidence. that is the right thing to do, and that what i hope that the committee does and the full senate does. >> senator coons. >> thank you, mr. chairman. yesterday was an important and a difficult day. a long day for dr. ford, for

judge kavanaugh, the senate judiciary committee, for our nation. i will say briefly at the outset that before yesterday began, i prayed. i prayed for dr. ford and her family. i prayed for judge kavanaugh and i prayed for the rank iing memb and the president, and i prayed for all who watched yesterday who were victims of sexual assault, and i prayed for all who would watch yesterday uncertain whether we could conduct ourselves respectfully. i must say after everything that i have heard, i am struck that in the twitter-fueled smash mouth politics of our day, we m must ask ourselves, what about our conduct? what about our conduct here would encourage anyone to come forward with credible allegations of sexual assault, to seek a nomination to a federal court or other position of trust or to serve here.

and as a result, i tonight will pray for our nation. the burden on the committee was to address, investigate and resolve reasonable doubts as to credible allegations gaiagainste nominee before that. and by that test, this committee has failed. i know we have heard strong words about many of our colleagues. my predecessor long serving senator and former chairman of the committee joe biden has been quoted by many and i would say misquoted at times, but i would share one quote of what he said to me when i began my service here, and he said it is always appropriate to question another senator's policies, and it is always appropriate to question another senator the's prior tis, but it is never appropriate to question another senator's motives, and there is far too much of that has happened in this process in a way that

frankly will make it very difficult for us to take off our partisan jerseys and at some point get back to the important work of finding solutions to the realle challenges facing this country. what i have been search ing fin in this process is the facts. i recognize that many of my cloogs on the other side do not see it that way. many of you have questioned the timing gags surfaced, and you have also said that there are not enough facts corroborating dr. ford's testimony to ruin a good man. i strongly disagree with both both of the points, and i want to briefly explain why. the first time i learned of dr. ford's allegations that judge kavanaugh had assaulted her was

on -- and i think that the decision to come forward should have been dr. ford and dr. ford's alone. i cannot rule out that the person who leaked this has a partisan agenda, but i am sure that ranking member feinstein and her staff did not disclose it before that date, because it is not theirs to share. and it is regrettable that the long-serving honorable colleagues of hers have questioned her motives. i know that since the day of my democratic colleagues and i learned of the allegations, we have had one consistent request to allow the fbi to investigate them in a nonpartisan, profession professional even-handed manner r and to deliver the findings to us so we could reach a conclusion. that same night ranking member feinstein sent a letter requesting such a letter. a and to suggest that the senate staff interviews or the letters from the lawyers are an adequate substitute for a robust fbi fact-gathering process that we might then weigh is not credible and reflects sadly a willful

blindness to the dysfunction of the institution. to my colleagues across the aisle. you know me. you know that i try to be fair to the nominees that come before us, and i respect the process and the humanity of those with whom i passionately disagree. if i were convinced that this is nothing more than a partisan hit job to take down a good man and hold the position vacant past the election, i would not stand for it. an investigation would be helpful because dr. ford's recollection shared with us so powerfully yesterday of the assault were searing, but incomplete. dr. ford testified credibly about painful memories that she has carried with her to this date. and the feeling of the hand collapsed over her mouth and her not being able to breathe. the sound of laughter while she was pinned on a bed. the weight of a body on top of hers groping her and the feeling of relief fleeing the house.

dr. ford testified with 100% certainty that the person who assaulted her was brett kavanaugh whom she knew through multiple acquaint tenances and socialized with. but it is true that as wildly said, that she cannot pinpoint the time of the assault and the exact location and that she did not tell anyone about the assault at that time. there is not an eyewitness who has been able to provide the details of this. all of which is typical of the sexual assault. many experts have written how common it is for assault survivors to remember some facts with searing clarity, but not others which has to do with the survival mode that turns on when we experience trauma. the vast majority of the sexual assault victims deladies closing what happen -- deladies closing what happened to them or not at all. one of the striking things about the hearing for me has been the so-called five personal friends,

acquaintances and friends i have known for decades who have conveyed to me their experiences of sexual assault on this phone while this testimony was going on. that suggests that there is an ocean of pain in this nation, and not yet fully heard, and not yet fully addressed and not yet appropriately resolved, and i for one will not agree to the countenance by many that it happened too long ago and in our nation boys will be boys. we must do better than that and set a better standard than that for our own families and for our future. i worry sincerely about the message that we are sending to assault survivors if we plow ahead with the nomination despite the seriousness of the allegation, and i have conveyed to my friends and colleagues that i had wished that we would take a one-week pause. one week only. not to spread this the out past the next election, and not to

pu pursue some part san goal, but to allow a professional fbi interview for everyone who may have relevant information and starting, yes, with mark judge who obviously give n the vote o this committee this morning will not be subpoenaed to the appear before us. i will remind you briefly that many of those who came forward to support judge kavanaugh including my own professor from yale law school can, and an o-- organization that i have long belonged to the bar association have spoken up for a thorough background investigation. i think that to ask for a week is not too much. when professor anita hill came forward, the white house cooperated and in four days a hearing was put together with 22 witnesses, and that is what dr. ford deserves and i think that is what her bravery deserves and i think that what our nation deserves. i will not go through a long point by point reputation of

what we have just heard from some of my colleagues, but let me say simply a few things about dr. ford's testimony. as i said, she bore the pain of the attack for far too long but her memories did not stay hers alone. she told her now husband in 2002 and told her therapist in 2013 and friends in 2013 through 2018 and submitted thatm testimony. when she came forward yesterday, dr. ford, she had nothing to gain and a lot to lose. she came forward to testify about her experience of oassault and i'm going to use her words. she said i'm here today not because i want to b.chl be. i am terrified. i believe it is my civic duty to tell you what happened to me while brett kavanaugh and i were in high school.

civic duty. to tell the truth. what has always struck me is that dr. ford came forward to voice concerns about judge kavanaugh before he was nominated. she reached out to the congresswoman anonymously to the washington post tipline as well when judge kavanaugh's name was on the president's short list. she was not lying in wait for an opportune time to make a big reveal to sink a nominee, and rather, she wanted the information to get to the president before he made the selection so that the president could pick someone else. i wish he had. judge kavanaugh yesterday unequivocally denied the allegations against him. but something that he said repeatedly importantly was not accurate. over and over again he testified and we have heard it repeated here today that dr. ford's account was refuted by three individuals dr. ford identified as being present. that not the case, and judge kavanaugh knows it. not recalling is not the same as refuting. there are statements issued

through the lawyers say they don't remember the ga r ththega and of course, none of the three people were assaulted that night. for two of them unremarkable evening and casual summer among friends and leland keyser says she believes the account, and a fact not acknowledged by my colleagues or judge kavanaugh. i will also say that in my view, the failure of the committee to subpoena mark judge as a witness or participant in the attack is a failure of this committee's effort to get to the truth. we have to face the a reality there are sworn statements from ms. ramirez and ms. swetnick who have asked for the fbi investigation, and they have varying credibility, but they deserve to be heard. i wish that judge kavanaugh would have pointedly supported a short pause for an fbi investigation for the benefit of clearing his own name. but i'll say as i conclude there

is something much greater in my mind at stake. the fact that judge kavanaugh is no, ma' nominate nod the supreme court means that it is not just about his credibility and the remaining concerns about his credibility that i will carry forward. it is about the court's legitimacy. we are left with the reality that if his nomination goes forward this morning after testimony full of rage and part sanship and vitriol without a brief pause for nonpartisan investigation into the serious allegations presented, his service may well have an asterisk, and litigants coming in into the court will have are reason to question the fairness of the institution, and in my view, that is too great of a cost to impose on the system of justice in exchange for any one man. it is my hope my colleague, and those who have not yet decided or declared their decision will still join in the request to allow the fbi to do its

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

but could we kind of -- i have only interrupted senator cruz, but could we kind of make sure that we keep the remarks a little short so that everybody can speak. senator kennedy? okay. i guess that i am wrong. senat senator crapo. >> yes, chairman, i will do that and i wanted to respond first to the number of comments being made about, again, needing the fbi investigation, and the dynamic of what this committee has done. it is said that this committee has changed the procedure, and this is the first time that it has conducted its business in this way. again, as i said yesterday, i think that needs to be clarify and correct ed. the fact is that when the fbi does its background

investigation, it does just that, a background investigation. it talks to people who may have information about the nominee, and then a takes a statement from them. then it delivers the package of investigative information no the white house which passes it on to the committee which is the report that this committee receives from the fbi. it has been said that president bush reopened the fbi investigation when the anita hill information came out. my understanding is and if i am wrong on this, mr. chairman, please correct me, but my understanding on this is that when you, the chairman finally found out about the information, that information also went to the fbi, and perhaps it was the ranking member who gave the information and the letter to the fbi, but the fbi was given the information. is that correct? >> that is correct. and sent to the white house in the usually way they do and

considered it closed. >> two points there. first of all, the full letter unredacted was given to the fbi, and the fbi did what it does and i don't know exactly what they did in the anita hill case, but it did what it exactly usually does which is to reopen it if you will and evaluate the letter. again, i understand that the fbi then closed it and sent the information no the white house as they did with the previous report before this allegation came up. is that correct, mr. chairman? >> the only thing they can verify is that the fbi did what you, they would usually do, and that they then, and i don't know what that was, and they probably would keep their own internal stuff to themselves, but they sent a cover letter to the white house saying that the issue was close closed. >> so the fbi did look at this, and the fbi did whatever it does

in its background check acti activities and then are resent an updated amount of information mo the whi -- to the white house, which the white house forwarded to us, and the process traditionally followed in the committee was followed again. i believe that immediate ly the chairman opened up a investigation by this committee. that also is customary practice and as stated yesterday and i will restate it again, our committee investigative staff which is extensive and well tra trained has legal a authorities similar to the types that the fbi agents do such that when they conduct their investigations, the people who are interviewed and those who are reached out to by the committee are under the penalty of a felony that could result in five years imprisonment if they don't respond honestly and correctly tho questions.

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

them frankly made very strong cases. this committee is under the need to evaluate the testimony that was give en and determine how it will judge or rule on the obligation this committee has to give edadvice andn consent. and in that context, i came away believing that there had in fact beenb a sexual assault in dr. ford's past. as have been stated, it is not entirely clear when, where, and the other circumstance bushs there is no doubt in my mind that she truthfully testified that she had -- the other circumstances, but there is no doubt in my mind that she truthfully testify and there was a sexual assault in her past. i also listened carefully to judge kavanaugh as he testified,

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

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

ways were deeper and in ways that i find admirable, and the drift towards tribalism in this vaulted institution. when a supreme court va kcancy happened, i was one of the individuals who did not wait long to announce my intentions to vote gaiagainst judge kavana and i did it for sincere and deeply held beliefs. i did it because i felt that this was a person that had made it clear in the entire list of people prepared in the federalist society is and the heritage foundation that this is a guy that spoke directly towards a view of presidential power, presidential immunities that in this perilous time where a president is a subject of a criminal investigation that he

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

i have been exuberant in my beliefs. and i have learned a lot through this process. some of my comments have been referenced numerous time, and i know that -- i know that i have not been as precise and allowed my comments to be mischaracterized and i don't blame the people who have mischaracterized my comment, and i take responsibility and i have learned to be more precise and i talked to these issues and my values as much as i can. i travel around this country, and calling for more calmly and dignity of the democrats and the republicans and recognizing as much as i can, and i say it, patriotism is love of the country and you cannot love your country unless you love all of the countrymen and women. and the goodness and the decency

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

process so broken and so partisan, and then, sir, i viola violated the rules that you put forward in the committee, and willfully and knowingly and accepting the koconsequences of that. and i did so, because the documents that were being withheld from the public, i felt that they had a right to know, and there they were not classified or national security issue, and gosh, we disagreed with that, sir. i locked horns with people across the aisle, and for that i was grateful for the comity, and i was told, i was taught to hatet the sin, but love the sinner. i really love being on the comm committee. i love it. from living in newark, new jersey, and this is where i wanted to be, sir. i wanted to be on a committee that dealt with issues of justice in this country, because i feel that when we swear an oath to liberty and justice for all, i -- i don't think that we

are there yet as a country. and i have to say now as i am sitting here they deeply resent this the idea that somehow when dr. ford came forward that this dealt with partisanship. this has shifted this debate in this committee, and in the country from raw partisanship to something much deeper. i have such respect for the ranking member. and in this country from raw partisanship to something much de deeper, i have such respect for the ranking member, and i was in the room when we discussed literally hours after i was made

aware that the letter existed about what her motivations were. it was a private room. and so the conversation that we had was how to handle the information that was just presented to all of us. i have now been in numerous caucus meetings where politics has not been discussed. where with what has been done is some of the most eloquent speeches in our caucus meetings and i have heard colleagues read letters not by democrats or republicans, but by americans concerned about this. this is not a partisan moment for the country. back in the early 1990s, i was a student during the anita hill/clarence thomas hearings, and i think that there is people on both sides of the aisle agree that it was dealt with wrong, and the process then did not r

merit the dignity and the decency of the folks involved or the issue of sexual harassment. but yet that involved multiple hearings. that involved multiple witnesses, and that the involved the fbi investigation, and yet we still criticize that process, but now we are here today, and we have fallen even far short of what i believed was an inadequate process. sir, this is not about partisanship, and lot of folks are trying to make this about the whether she was flying to california or not, whether the letter was authorized or release odd r not, whether the process served her or not and that is seeming to be stripping away the heroism of ms. ford, dr. ford to come before this committee willingly he even under circumstances that she said

herself were not her wishes. she asked for the fbi investigation and asked for more witnesses, and she was not given what she asked for and she still came here and sat before this committee. what did she say, sir? when someone has the courage to speak to one of the most powerful bodies in the land, what did she say? she shared a raw and visceral incredible, and profoundly powerful testimony with this committee in the world, and she was believable. i believe her. she told us of her indelible memory. using words like seered into her memory and speaking of brain chemistry in a way -- she spoke of uproarious laughter of brett kavanaugh and mark judge being pinned to a bed, being hand over

the mouth, fearing for her life, and she was terrified of being raped or accidentally killed. when asked by this committee what level of certainty, this wasn't i don't know or not 100%, but she said i was 100% certain that it was judge kavanaugh and consistent with the other folks who experience sexual violence, it was seered into her memory and she knows 100% and this is credible, because she knew him. she had interacted with him socially before he had attacked h her. she did not need to pick him out of a lineup of teenagers and some random attack. she knew him. dr. ford's credible testimony does not stand on its own. it is bolstered by the significant can krob can rati-- corroboration. in 2012, 2013, 2014, 2016, she spoke of it and told it to five people.

long before judge kavanaugh was nominate nod t, ma'aminated to and she had in some instances described him by name and by others she identified him as federal judge. each of the individuals have provided the committee with the sworn statements attesting to the facts. we could have called the individuals to testify, this is not what i heard or part of the coordinated attack or something to do with the clintons and all of the other allegations, but this is somebody in the early years had talked about brett kavanaugh assaulting her. this is not some kind of political attack, but it is consistent not only with hr statements that are corroborated of what is consistent with what we know of other people who have undergone sexual attacks and beyond the corroboration of the outside witnesses, her account is corroborated by independent

facts. facts, and not opinions. the fact that dr. ford identified mark judge and p.j. smyth and others as friends of kavanaugh and present at the gathering is corroborated. it is also corroborated in judge kavanaugh's own calendar as we have seen. the judge kavanaugh documented a gathering on july 1st that included p.j. smyth and mark judge and others and a reference to alcohol. and dr. ford testified that shortly after the assault, six to eight weeks in her estimation, she ran into mark judge at a local grocery store, and that he seemed uncomfortable to see her. in his book, "wasted, tales of a genx drunk" he described working at a grocery store in 1982. it is all consistent. there are circumstances surrounding her coming forward to this committee also support her. first, she made contact with

elected representatives before judge kavanaugh was even nominated. this is not some political hit job. before he was even nominated, she came forward with this testimony. second, she submitted to a lengthy intrusive emotional as she said polygraph record. we did not call for the polygraph tester to sit before us so we could question him. the report concluded that she was truthful and now a part of the committee's record. third, number three, she reportedly called for the fbi n investigation into her claims, fully understanding that a false statement to the fbi could subject her to criminal penalties. we all know what it means when you get a call from the committee staffer or partisan in this case versus when you get a call from the fbi. we are lyi-- where lying to thes

a power fful issue. and that is chase canning after people and pulling on the loose threads that are evident in judge kavanaugh's record. and fourth, she came forward publicly despite knowing that she would face harsh public scrutiny, threats relentless invasions of privacy that her life would be forever altered, and we have heard a lot about the effect of judge kavanaugh which is real and not exaggerated. but the effect on her as well, and what she had to submit to by coming forward and making that courageous testimony. now, judge kavanaugh's testimony regardless of these allegations, it stands in sharp contrast to dr. ford's testimony. first, judge kavanaugh has everything to the lose should these allegations be fully investigated and proved, and everything to the lose.

that is why i don't believe he wants a full investigation. second, he has given numerous opportunities time and time again to call for an fbi investigation, and call for the independent investigation to clear his name, but he has refused to do so. if i was in the balance and being accuse canned of things that i knew were lies, i would be demanding every bit of evidentt cli inviary investigat possible and not just the fbi, but calling on every loose thread, but he has not. he has refused for the committee to hear even live testimony from witnesses that could corroborate his story or the doctor's. and third, the testimony and the claims of his drinking habits in high school and college and beyond have been contradicted by so many people. his statements have been just proven to be not true. judge kavanaugh's freshman college roommate james roach

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

that he got tapped into the fraternity and was stumbling drunk, and he was in a ridiculous state saying dumb thing, and i can almost guarantee that there is no way that he remembers that night. this is a registered republican who did not want to come forward until he heard the lies of judge kavanaugh. brooks said last night in an interview that are there were multiple e-mails and texts circling among the classmates about how kav naur was, quote, lying to the senate judiciary commit too tee in his testimony. that is is from the republican who did not want to come forward until she witnessed those lies. judge kavanaugh's testimony yesterday also mischaracterizes what three other people dr. ford indicated were present last night. he told us as his exonerating eviden evidence, kept mentioning three names over and over again and judge kavanaugh said that four people who knew dr. ford who dr. ford said were present at the 2

gathering where she was sexually assaulted said it did not happen. that is patently untrue. mark judge said, i have no memory of this alleged incident. this is not a it did not happen. p.j. smith says he has no knowledge of the allegations. that is not a it did not happen. leland keyser has said through her attorney, she has no recollection of being at a party where kavanaugh was are present. that is not a it did not happen. and in fact, leland keyser has said that she believes dr. ford. the only person who has denied the event that has taken place, and says it did not happen is judge kavanaugh. and so, now, this is the realle point, sir. >> and can you -- >> i would like to finish -- >> you have gone on. >> but may i finish my statement. >> okay. i want to ask you a question. you gone 17 minutes and i have three other people who want to speak.

>> i understand that, and i will be closing my comments soon and i want to continue. >> are you willing to let three other people? >> sir, i want to the finish my comments and you can let whoever speak, speak, sir. you the chairman. >> go ahead, sir. >> mr. mr. chairman -- >> he can take as much of my time as he wishes. >> this nation is now watching not in a partisan way and we saw one republican so offended because she knows kavanaugh and this is not democrats can and republicans watching, but it is americans watching right now to see what this body will do. this is not about politics or part sanship, and -- partisansh and i will remember what she said when she came before us that she was her civic duty and not trying to destroy a man, but a courageous and heroic woman sharing her sexual assault and harassment. this is what was done to me, she said. many of my colleagues said that they found dr. ford credible,

but to confirm judge kavanaugh you would have to say that you not only believe her, dr. ford, but that you are so certain that this didn't happen that you are willing to force a vote now without any further investigation. at best, you think that this is somehow confuse and does not really know what happened to her. even though yesterday she told us that she remembers brett kavanaugh cover canning her mouth seered into her memory and expressing fear at the time that he might accidentally kill her. she told us details from 2012, 2013, 2016, told to the therapist and her husband, and so this is where we are in the united states of america right now, and this is not a partisan momen moment, but it is a moral moment in the nation. we do not have to have this vote today. we can correct from the mistakes of the past in this nation. there were millions of people, men and women survivors of sexual assault watching this body of powerful people, and

what will happen. this toxic culture and this pernicious patriarchy in the country has to stop. it is real in this country, and people are suffering. they are watching this body right now. children abused watching what powerful people in religious institutions and how they sweep it aside, deny, attack. people in corporations or news media outlets who were abused and harassed for years. and their testimony, and their truth was swept aside and belittled and attacked and vilified and followed by investigators. and millions are watching this body and how we act. do we rush to the vote? will we brush aside a credible witness's testimony, and will we belittle a credible testimony?

will we ignore credible testimony? will we listen, believe? in the united states of america right now, there are dark corners of our culture. the center for disease control reports 1 of every 3 american women, one of three american women will experience some form of sexual violence and 1 of 6 men. 60% of them go unreported. and there are those who are right now watching this group of powerful people, and how will we deal with the privileged man, a seat on the supreme court. it is not an entitlement because you went to yale law school or the captain of the basketball team. this is not the supreme court is not an entitlement. and mr. chairman, this is not a court of law, and we are not saying that this man is guilty of what he said, but the question is do we know enough now to delay this, or are we

going to rush to put someone on the supreme court with this cloud hanging over them? i can not stomach that we are going to move forward, and that we are going to say to women across the country and men across the country -- >> i think that question that you just asked is a good place to stop. >> sir, i will stop with this. i will stop with this and respect for the committee and respect for you, i cannot sit here, and i cannot participate in what i know that history is going to look back as a dark moment again in the same way that we look back at the anita hill and clarence thomas trials. i cannot participate. and i concan collude the remarks that we should not brush aside her comments or belittle the testimon testimony, and we should listen to her, and listen to women and we should thoroughly investigate before moving forward before doing any other thing as to diminish the truth, diminish the issue of sexual harassment in the country, and to again

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

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

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

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

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

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

>> these until the fall of the gavel. >> second that. >> mr. chairman? >> you yielded your time you told me. >> part of my type to senator booker. do i have any left? >> yes. >> you may -- you may proceed. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i'll yield my time to him, mr. chairman. >> i appreciate that graciousness and i hope it is a sign that we will rebuild across the aisle. yesterday there were words spoken and we know in families that words are spoken in anger and sometimes in the moment that we later walk back. those words, yesterday, from members across the aisle to this

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

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

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

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

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

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

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