this story tha e notn "the new york times" would report, the accusations of ms. ramirez and then stormy daniels comes up with this most sordid conduct. it is outrageous and you're right to be angry. this is your time to tell your story and i home you have a chance t tell us everything you want to tell us. the burden is not on you to disprove the allegations made. e burden under our system, when you accuse somebody of criminal nduct, is on the person making the accusation. now, i understand this isn't a trial. but i just want to make suree understood. it is hard to reconstruct what happened 36 yea ago and i appreciate what you said about dr. ford. that perhaps she has had an incident at some point in her

life. and you are sympathetic to that. and, but your reputation is on the line. an i hope people understand the gravity of the charges made against yound wha a fair process looks like. >> thank you, mr. chairman, judge. wee talking here about decency. and you understand, we have this nstitutional duty to advise and consent. for me when this evidence came forward, i decided that i needed to look at this and i needed to find out aut it and i needed to ask you questions about it, as well as others that were involved. so again, i'm not goinge to t quite the same approach as my colleagues and talk d about mcgahn. why don't you just ask the president. dr. ford can't do this. we clearly haven't been able to do this.t but jnd the president to

reopen the fbi >>investigation. think you're doing the investigation. i'm here to answer your questions. and i should say one thing, senator klobuchar, i appreciate our meeting together and i appreciate how youh handled the prior hearing. >> thank you. all of that aside. here's the thing. you could actually just get this open so we can talk to these witnesses, and the fbi can do it, instead of us. and youee come bef us. but we have people like mar judge who dr. ford says was a witness to this. we have this polygraph expert that my colleagues are raising issues about the we would like to have that person come before us. and i just think, if we cou open this up -- >> i don't mean to interrupt.

>> we would like to ask the fbi able to follow up and ask him questions. wealked about past nomination processes. and you talked about those. i know president bush in the anita hill, justice thomas case. he opened up the fbi investigation and let questions be asked and i think it was helpful for people. so was his decision reasonable? >> i d't know the circumstances of that. what i know -- >> the circumstancest are t he opened up the investigation so the fbi could ask questions. he opened up the background check. >> i'm here to answer questio about my year book. sports or something like that. >> okay. the ot going to ask abo year book. so most people have done some drinking in high school and college. and many people even struggle

with alcoholism and binge drinking. my own dad struggled with alcoholism most of his life and he got in trouble for and it there were consequences. he is still in aa at age 90 and he is sober and in his words,e was pursued by grace. that's how he got through this. so inr y case, you have said here and other places, that you never drank so much that you didn't remember what happened. but yet, we have heard, not under oath but we have heard your college roommates say tha you did drink frequently. these are in news reports. th you would sometimes be belligerent. another classmate

judge. >> nor do i. >> okay. thank you. >> senator hatch. >> since this fbi thing keeps coming up all the time, let's get back to bacs. first of all, anybody, including any senator that's brought up this sue, could ask for a fbi investigheion. what fbi dozens is gather

information for the white house. the file is sent to the committee for us to make our own aluations. we're capable of making our own determination about the accuracy of any of those allegations. the fbi has put out a sertement ow i suppose it's a month ago, clearly stating this matter is closed as far as the letter being sent to them. and there is no federal crime to investigate. if senate democrats hope for the fbi to draw any conclusions on this matter, i'm going to remind you what joe biden said. now, i said thisn my statement but maybe people aren't listening when i say, and maybe they won't even hear this. joe biden, quote, the next person w refers to an fbi report as being worth aobthing ously doesn't understand anything. does not ilicitly this or any other case reach a conclusionperiod.

they hsay, said, she said, they said, period. sohen people wave an fbi report before you or even bring it up now as sething prospectively, that wasn't in his quote, understd they do not, they do not, they do not reach conclusions. they do not make recommendations. senator hatch. >> mr. chairman? >> let me do this. >> let me say for the record that actually we have asked. youaid nobody's asked the fbi or we could ask the fbi. i actually have. i think others have. i think that the issue is that part of what an fbi report does is to a investigate seek either corroborating or exculpatory evidence. it's not so muc the conclusion that it draws asth the bre of the evidence that is sought out through the investigation and the difference between what somebody might say to an fbi beingwhen they're

examined and, for instance, mr. judge's letter signed by his lawyer, sent in. it's just a different thing. and i believe still that this i the first background investigation in the history of background investigations that hasn't been reopened when new credible derogatory information was raised about the subject, about the nominee. so, you know, i just didn't want to let the point you made stand without referencing what we have tried to do. >> pardon me,ut i'll just add to the point you made, the letter was sent to the fb the fbi sent it to the white house with a letter saying the case is closed. we're taking a break now for senator -- we're taking a break now. 15-minute break. >> aut 11 more questioners to go here in the judgeavanaugh hearing. gets emotional. we're seeing a little bit of

changen tack from republicans who had been relying on a hired prosecutor to answer the questions, but that has changed now ao they seek take on a more defensive tone on behalf of brett kavanaugh, whoas shown there are two points that i think judge kavanaugh is having a difficult time with. one, why he won'ty, okay, let's do an fbi investigation. and two, somebodylse asked, should mark judge come and testify and he wouldn't say yes to that. for somebody saying, look, search , i'minnocent. that's the part that democrats are finding it easy to zer in

on. wait a minute. if you want to exonerate yourself, why wouldn't you want to do that? >> it isseased on a f premise. the guy has a confirmation vote scheduled for the democrats held this and then sprang it on him. what he needs to say. they're saying to him is, why won't you ask the fbi to come in and delay the vote on your confirmation over allegations that you maintained are entirely false and made up so we can postpone this whole thing until after the miterms. >> so he is saying -- >> he raised the issue. >> he came in in his opening statement and said, oncehese allegations were made, i w come the fbi or any other investigation. so by opening that up in his written statement, that 45-minute statement, he opened the door wide for them. if he had not said ethat, h would not, i think, have been

quite so vulnerable to these requests. >> sorry to interrupt bust the world you want toive in and the world do you live in. it may stink to highve h that the democrats did not reveal this until a very, very late date. however, now he's here on the y e of a vote where the result is vch in question. and if he could, by saying, fine, bring the fbi in here and you crawl under every nook and cranny. >> what witnesses are they going to talk to? >> they can talko mar judge and ask questions. he submitted self-serving statement. it is not conclusive. the fbi ionot going reach a conclusion. that's for the senate to do. however, theenate can reach a more well-rounded conclusion if it has a comprehensive set of evidence. >> let's be realistic.

this is irreconcilable differences. we're going bit by bit. i'm trying to look at i from how is this country reaing to this? this is turning out to be as bad as i feared. it was a moment where i felt, if this hearing happened, it could break us. we've been sayings the senate broken? this feels, judicial nominations have been the baine of the exist tense. i would say go back to bourque. there's enough. this bac and forths ugly. this irreconcilable differences means, h are we going to a point where a majority fls comfortable about either conclusion? >> i think everybody watching these witnesses today probably feels, the ones who don't have

it, their minds made up. do you know what i see from the left political people is this this is washington that i w to burn down. this is the washington that is so -- you don't feels if, it feels li sereverybody is more concerned about making a point with their base. rather than worrying about judge kavanaugh or dr. ford. >> you're so right about this ing broken the senate used to be a place, until fairly recently, where it uld be my good friend so and so. even on the panel. this has w nowh the anger that both sides are feeling toward each other. i don't know how they will ever work together. amy klobuchar, former prosecutor, was about as mild mannered in her approach to him. when she asked him some very specific low key questions about idinking, he saidou ever pass out? and she's not on trial.

that was the worst moment so far. she is very clo to a lot of republicans, very close to john mccain. highly regarded and she was treated very bad by the male witness here. lindsay graham was passionate and powerful. >> and making the case this is litical. if it is or it isn't political doesn't change the questions. >> he may have justor double than a trump rally. >> he was the bestfe er. >> he was the only defender. >> that's what i was saying earlier. the judge has no one out there on his side. no one. >> where does this leave dr. ford? dr. ford still delivered testimony today that was compelling.id shet get knocked off hers. ma politics aside, these two people telling very different stories. where does that lea her? >> that's the part that feels so

tragic. this is the human element part. is goes back to, lindsay graham, that was a great part of the speech. we're going to get out there because we're not going to reward this kind of behavior. there will be plenty of people in this country w will react just as angrily. if it looks like you're jamming him through and ignoring the testimony thimorning. >> opened the my republican colleagues, if you vote no,ou are legitimizing the most despicable thing i've seen in my time in politics. that was a message to flake, collins, murkowski, any of those. he was laying down the line that mitchon mll will make the votto them to have tomorrow. >> donald trump's wing man. lindsay graham.

>> i want to know at what point did they decide to dump rachel? >> rachel mitchell is with us no longer, apparently. becausee you have kavanaugh c out there and throw away the script. he had a pre-prepared self-incrimination. forget it. i wonder did that inspire graham to say me too? forg rachel, forget this attempt on seem like we're goino e completely measured with respect to each witness and let this guy get punched in the face by both sides odid graham have that planned out all along? >> does anyone feel they're a closer to knowing what happened? i don't think so. you had two compelling witnesses. >> i think they bh believe they're telling the truth. to me, i think senators have to decide, what is the fallout?

my guess is, how a senator will be thinking about this. what is the fallout from eithe decision and what is the sort of, to me, what is the least bad option? because it feels like either outclom feel like a bad option. >> to answer savannah's question directly, what is her motivation to come forward? and to welcome an investigation. and his motivation is clearly the job intervi and theest of his life on theur supreme so you have to ask that in evaluating, why would this person come forward. >> a lack of motive to lie is clearly on herfavor. >> but the republicans know that. >> even if you completely believe dr. ford, who was remarkably credible in her

testimony. you cannot disregard t foibles of memory. 36 years late and i understand everyone coming out with their story saying, you don' forget who i on top of you. you don't forget who is putting his hand over your mouth. that's a legitimate point fwuflt testimonials like that arell mistakenhe time. >> not in circles that are so close. >> it happens all ttime. and that's why women, that's why men have en falsely convicted at trial. >> but this is not a neup. is is a small circle of friends. >> but making the point, youan terpret this evidence in a lot of ways. or there's a third possibility that chuck raised. this notion that both have sincere and genuine belief that they are telling the truth. and tt they interpreted something very y.differen i don't know. i had wante to m both these stories compatible and it is almost impossible.

>> you can imagine a scenario -- >> let's resethe table for folks who haven't been sitting here watching it like we have since hi9:30morning. we have a couple of clips that sets the tone from eac of them. here it is. >> what is the strongest memory you have?ng the stt memory of the incident? take whatever time you need. >> indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter, the uproarious laughter between two and their having fun at m expense. >> you've never forgotten that laughter. you never forgot them laughing atyou. >> they were laughing with each other. >> and you were the objectf the laughter?

>> i was underneath one of the while the two laughed. two friends having aeally good time with one another. >> i categorically deny the allegaons against mey dr. ford. i never had any sexual or physical oencounter any kind with dr. ford. i never attended a gathering like thene dr. ford describes in her allegations. i've never sexually assaulted dr. ford or anyone. again, i am not questioning that dr. ford may have been sexually assaulted by some person in meplace at some time. but i have never done that to her oran to ne. >> that kind of capsulizes it.sn a disagreement about a given seventh facts. she says it happened. he said it didn't happen and

didn know her. it was you, chuck, that raised the idea, if wthink there would be a resolution today. that's what we knew yesterday. >> there are two back drops we can't forget. one is donald trump. there is this sense, and he hasn galvanized w from the second the access hollywood tape drop. i'll be honest with you. it felt like this just, wo this political war, this nuclear war was today it feels like nuclear war has been declared between two parties here. and that's why i keep coming back to,ry i'mg to figure out, where do we go tomorrrg? the vote. where do we go tomorrow? this is scar tissue, we'veeen talking about the scar tissue

that goesback. this one, thisne will calcify. >> it was one of those moments. no matter where you come down. this is ugly, brutal and here, like the rest you sending messages back and forth saying i can't watch anymore. >> it is watching a divorce. whatever it is, itjust, that's what i mean. the two parties feel like irreconcilableff ences. they don't want to believe the other side might be telling the truth. >> it is the people at the center of it.>> it was 52-48 for clarence

thomas. i feel having covered every confirmation hearing since bork. i f like something is wrong with our cspoli i feel sick to my stomach indeed. >> i will say this. it is never permanent. we weren't there in the 1950s and 60s. it was mccarthy, that was an ugly era of american politics. you know, we can get through it spot.e're in a rough >> the culmination of so many things happening. how divided our country is. i've never seen, i have nev seen federal judge cry. i have never seen somebody on the d.c. circuit court of appeals, one of, if not the most respected court in the nation, in tears on national television repeatedly talking about the utter destruction of his reputation and his family had what should be a battle but not a personalized bruising,

destructive battle. and on the other ha you have christine ford. a woman well respect in the palo alto who is devoted to helping people in the psychiatric field in what was obviously an honest testimonial, even if wasn't him, as he claims, or wasn't as bad as othersave suggested. and i have to tell you, i think about senators. and it makes me sick to my stomach. the senator from hawaii hirono is already fundraising off this. off christine ford's testimony and she iad to dia back. who fundraises off soouexual assault allegations? and those who call it evil and made it personal. it is wrong. i watch him cry. it makes me want to cry. i watch her cry. it makes me want to cry.

the other thing is th weaponization of the me too movement.bl christiney ford has real allegations. if you want to believe her and do you believe her, you should. but the standard is i different a senate confirmation hearing. and to say that he gets no defense. none. that we must believe her because she is a wan is utterly unfair and inconsistent with the way we've done this since the beginning of time in putting people on the supreme court. >> which is why some have argued that they would like the investigation and the evidence, judge, to be, mark judge to be brought in. >> he is clearly uncomfortable when mark judge is brought up. every t je markge is brought in. a friend, clearly a close friend. he is on your calendar. and he doesn't like the questions aboutthat. >> and i think it was to durbin,

or to leahy, to not be sensitive to addiction. when he gets angry and turns questions back on the senators. that's not a good look for a witness. >> we do have to think about judicial temperament. >> that matters. >> you've never seen federal judge ory or mouth to a senator or get angry? defiant is one thing but belligerent is another. >> this is a very human moment. these are real people. you can understand, under tremendous stressful here's why the investigation and the notion of the fbi continuing. or tryin to at least put some of these people to actual questions. mark judge is the one. have him sit here in front of the senators or talk to them. >> he can take a da >> whatever it is, what you have now is he said, she sa so if you need something that

will tip the scale in one direction or the other -- >> i don't think they believe it will tip it h says, as i said to you already in testimony. it didn't happen. they won't believe that. >> neither party over

. >> she asked me a question, i responded by asking her a question and i'm sorry i d that. >> i appreciate that. i would like to add, when you have a parent that's an coholic, you're pretty careful about drinking. the second thing is i was truly just tryin g to to the bottom of the facts and the evidence. and again, i believee d that by opening up the fbi investigation and i would cal it a background check instead of investigation. >> thank you, judge. welcome. we're happy to hahe you . i would like to say a few words. my friend from arizona

emphasized yesterday, we have before us today, two human dr. ford and judge kavanaugh. they deserve, each of you deserves to be treated fairly and respectfully. we've tried to do that earlier with dr.ord and think we succeed. it is important that we treat judge kavanaugh fairly now. and it remains to be seen how at will work out. he's been a federal judge for 12 years and he's been a great federal judge on the second highest court in the nation. he's earned a reputation for fairness and decency. his clerks love him. his students. he teaches in law school as well. his students love him. his colleagues love him. this man is not a monster. nor is he what has been represented here in these hearings. we're talking about judge vanaugh's conduct in high school.

and even then, and as a freshman in colllge as serious allegations have been raised thatua he committed s assault, he should not serve on the supreme court. i think we would all agree that. but the circus aosphere that has been created since my democratic colleagues first leaked dr. ford's allegations to the media two weeks ago, after siing on them for six weeks, i might add, has brought us the worst in our politics. it is certainly brought us no closer to the truth. anonymous letters with no name and no return address are now being treated as national news. rn star lawyers are driving the news cycle. this ise w than robert bork and i didn't think it could get worse than that. this is worse than clarence thomas.

this is a national disgrace, the way you're being treated. and in the middle of it we have judge kavanaugh who until two weeks ago, was a pillarle of th l community. there has been no whisper of miscondu misconduct. what we have are uncorroborated, unsubstantiated claims fromis teenage years. claims that every alleged eyitness has either denied or failed to corroborate. i do not mean to minimiz the seriousness of the claims. they've been serious claims but the search for truth has to involve more than bare assertions. like dr. ford,udge kavanaugh deserves fair tmtrt. he was an immature high schooler. so were we all. i understand my colleagues want to tear dow this man at any

cost. i understand it. let'steast be fair and look at the facts or absence there of. galt by association is wrong.im turity does not equal criminality. ort he drank in high scho college does not make him guilt why of every terrible thing that he's recently been accused of. lifetime respect ought to mean something in assessing allegations that are flatly inconsistent with the course of a person's entire adult life. with those comments, like the ask you a few questions, if i can, and if you can know short in your answers, would it help me get through a bunch of them. about howhis process has unfolded. when did you first learn of dr. ford's allegations against you?a >> i a week ago sunday when the "washington post" story. >> did the ranking member raise these aions in your meeting with her last month? >> she did not. >> did the ranking member raise

them at your public hearing earlier this month?no >> >> did the ranging member raise them at the closed session that followed the public hearing? >> she was not there. >> did the ranking member or any of her colleagues raise them in theen 1,300 wri questions were submitted to you following the hearing? >> no. >> when was the first time that the member or her staff askedse but t allegations? >> today. >> when did you first hear of ramire allegations against you? >> in the last, in the periodth since . the new yorker story. >> did the ranking member or any of her colleagueser or her staff ask you about ramirez' allegations before they were leaked to the press? >> no. >> when was the first time that the ranking member, or any of her colleagues or any of tir staff ask you about miss ramirez' allegations?

>> da >> i think it is a disgrace. >> thank you, mr. chairman. judge vanaugh, today's hearing is about dr. ford's serious allegations about sexual assault. you have unequivocally died thos claims. but we're here today on assess her credibility and yours. in ours previ vigorous exchanges, i found that your answers at times vigorously defended but at other times it struck me as evasive on key issues. it against that back drop that i'm s to assess your credibility today. you said in your opening that rule of law means taking allegations seriously. it brings me no joy to question out these topics today but i think they are serious and worthy of our tention. so let me return to a line of questioning that my colleague o was before. which was about whether you've ever gotten aggresse while

drinking or forgotten an evening afterdrinking. >> throws twoifferent questions. i've ld answered the second one. the first, i don't know what you that.by what are you talking abou i don't mean that it way but no the basic answer unless you're talking about something that i'm that are of that you're going to ask about. >> the reason i'm asking, we've had very brief period of time to weigh outside evidence and i'll join my cleagues in saying, i wish we had more evidence in front of us today to weigh. do you remember liz swisher, a cla classmate of yours from yale?n firste outside evidence, all four witnesses -- >> i'm trying to get this question. >> i know. but you made a point.

i want t emphasize, all four witnesses who were allegedly at the event have. it didn't happen, including dr. ford's long time friend, miss keyser. >> if mark judge were i front of to us question, we would be able to assess his credibility.s let me get through this if i can, your honor. lizer swis a classmate, now a medical doctor. and i'm quoting from a reaso interview she gave. nke said brett kavanaugh d more than a lot of people. he would end up suring his words. it is not credible to say he's no memory lapses. i ow because i drank with him. how should we assess ?th >> she then goes on, if you kept reading. she said she can't point to any specific instance like that.>> the quote that jumped out at me wase was a sloppy drunk and i know because i drank with him. >> i do not think that's a fair

characterization. and chris dudley is quotedn that article. and when i would refer to you what chris dudley that, i spent more time with chris dudley if college than just about anyone. and i would w refer to yout he said. >> in other reporting, as'll sure you know, a classmate described you as relatively shy but when you drank you could be aggressive or even belligerent. and -- >> that freshman year roommate. there was contention between him and me, there were three ofus. a small room. and you should look at what emin the edreda portion of the transcript about him. and you should h asses credibility with that in mind. >> put yourself in our shoes for a moment if you would. and i know that's asking a lot of you in this setting. suppose you were slegting someone for an incredibly u portant job. d a lot of qualified

candidates. as you are finishinghe process, you learn of a credible allegation, if etrue, would disqualifying. wouldn't you take step back and conduc investigation or move to a different candidate? and why not agree on a one-week pause to allow the fbi to investigate all these allegations and allow you an opportunitym week f now to have the folks present in front of us for to usir assess t credibility, and for us to either clear your name, or resolve these allegations by moving to a different nominee? >> all four witnesses who are alleged to be at the events said it didn't happen including dr. ford'song time friend, miss keys he shal keyser, who said she doesn't know me and she doesn't recal being a party with me with or without dr. ford. >> what i struggle absence of a ferrell federal law enforcement driven, nonpartisan, proco question the various people who i think are critical to this.

concern, should you move forward, is what it will do to the credibility of the court and how that may well hang over your service. >> we you clear or confirm some of these allegations? >> when you say a week delay, do you know how long the last ten days have been? >> probablyn eternity. >> every day -- eve day has been a lifetime. and you know, yeah. it's been investigated. all four witnesses say i didn't happen. and they said it under penalty of felony. d i produced my calendars whic show, you know, that is important evidence. andou act like, the last ten days, i asked for a hearing the day after t allegation.

>> before i cal on senat lee, i want to emphasize something here. something ut doing without enough time. we had 45 days between july th, and september the 13th, i believe it is. we could have been investigating this. in regard to this candidate, if you take average of 65 to 70 days between the time that a person is announced by the president and the senate votes on it is about 65 to 70 days. here we are at about 85 to 90 days. so there is plenty of time put in on thison nomina wait a minute. i've got one other thing. everybody else has been putting letters in the record i have a letter here from 65 women who knewgh judge kavan

between the years '79 and '83. the years he attended georgetown prep high school. these women went to the committee because they know judge kavanaugh and they know that the allegations raised by dr. ford are completely inconsistent with his caring. these 65 women know him through social events and church. many have remained close friends with him. here's what they say.hr quote,gh the more than 35 years we've known him, brett has stood out for his friendship, character and integrity. he has always treated women decency and rt pectful ts true in high school and remains true to this day. in osing, they wrote, judge kavanaugh, quote, has always a be good person. without objection, i put it in the >>record. judge kavanaugh, you've been cooperative at every stage of investigation. your back ground investigation and the investigation conducted by tmms tee. is that correct? >> that's correct.

it is correct that you do not control the fbi or when it conducts a mination. deciding who, when, o how conducts the investigation. at every moment when either we or prioro the committee taking jurisdiction over it, the fbi has asked you questions, you've been attentive and responsive. isn't that correct? >> that's correct.ho thro my career. i have colleagues who have repeatedly called for an fbi investigation and there are some ironies in this. at least two levels. in the first place, at least one least oneeagues, at of them, had access to this ma, many weeks beforenyone else did. and had the sgalt i believe tat moral obln to report that to the fbi. at which point they could have and wgald have been invesd by the fbi. and that could have been handle in the such a way tha didn't

turn spite a sir and it has turned your leaf and the life of dr. ford upside down. i consider this most unfortunate s was entirely under the control of at least one of my democratic colleagues to do this. the second level is while calling for an fbi by the fbi, over which you have no ability to control, an investigation you have no authority to call hifor, calling for an investigation, we're in the middle of a conversationnvhatves questions to you. so i ask my colleagues, if you have questions for judge kavanaugh, ask him. he is right . if that's what you want is the truth, ask him now. if you he questions ofther tn ses, then for the love of all sacred and holy,ti ppate as you have not been participating. if someone really were interested in the truth, this is what they would do.

they would participate in the investigation. when we ha a committ investigation, a xhoe hearing with live witnesses, they would about that rather than something else they t wishy them.having in front of if what they want is a search tor the truth. if what they w is to wait until after the election, which at least one of my colleagues on the democratic side has acknowledged, that might be what they would do. finally, i want to point out that there is significant precedent from our former cheryl of the committee. cheryl joe biden. during the clarence thomas hearings nearly three decades ago, chairman biden made some interesting observations about fbi rorts and the role in this process. he said the next person who refers to an fbi report as bhng wo anything obviously doesn't understand anything. the fbi explicitly does not in this or any other case a reach

conclusion. period. period. those are his dual periods. not mine. i continue the quote. ane reason wet rely on the fbi report, you would not like it if we did bause it is inconclusive. 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 as my friend points out more accurately, they do nake recommendations. in other words the role of the fbi is to flagis es. those issues have been flagged. sadly they were flagged but not as they should have been. not in the timing as they should have been. and therefoue, they have preserved a lot more dignity for you and for dr. ford a her family. they were instead held out until the final moment. i consider that most unfortunate. d for that, on behalf of this committee, i extend to you my mostpround sympathies. sympathiet profound

to dr. ford and her family as well. >> mr. chairm c, i have the last minute of senatorleahy? judge, within 38 hours in public with you definity we have any private hearings with you? >> yes. >> was tt a f time for you? when senators could ask questions that are awk or uncomfortable about potential alcoholism, pblential gg addiction, credit card debt, if your buddies floated you money guy baseball tickets? diyou enjoy that? >> i am always happy to cooperate with the committee. >> that's charitable. were you ever asked about any sexual allegations when we had you in here alone? >> no did the committee already have these allegations for september 6 oran 7? the letter was wren on july 30th?

a recommendation was made by the ranking member of our staff to dr. ford? and i think dr. ford is victim and i think she's been through hell. and i'm very sympathetic to her. bu did the ranging member staff a e a recommendation to hire lawyer and she knew all that and we had a hearing with you and none of thesehings were asked? then once the process was closed, oncehe fbi investigation was closed, once we were done meeting in public and ive, then this was sprung on you? i want to make sure. we've got 35 plus days from all the time that this evidence was in the hands, recommendations were made to an outside lawyer. you could have handled all this. we could have had this in private in a way that not only do crap to his family -- i yield my time. trying to see if co-do math about 35 days.

>> thank you. good afternoon, judge kavanaugh. as a federal judge, you're aware of the jury instructions, are you not? you're aware of the jury instruction? >> yeah, i am. >> you know what it meanou >>an translate it. >> itn means falsee thing, false in everything. in jury instructions, some of us as prosecutors heard many times, told a jury that they can disbelieve a witness if they one him to be false in thing. so the core of why we're here today really is credibility. >> the core of why we're here is ll allegation for which the four witnesses have said it didn't happen. >> let me ask you about renete

who lived in connecticut. she thought the year book statements were horrible, hurtful and simply untrue because she clearly implied some boasts ofexual conquests. >> that's false speaking. about the year book. she said she and i never had any sexual interactions. it really does great harm to her. i don't know why you're bringing this up.ri bying her name up here. it is really unfortunat >> well, calling someone an alumnus in that way. about the high number of your

football friends at the time boastingf sexual conduct. >> you're implying that. look what you're bringing up about her. w lookt you're doing. >> don't bring her name up. >> she is a great person. she has always been a great person. we never h a sexual interaction. by bringing this up, you're just dragging her through the mud. it is just unnecessary. t >>nk you. you make reference to a sworn en stat i believe, by mark judge to the committee. is that correct? >> i've madeeference to when -- >> it's not a sworn statement. is it? >> under penalty of felony? >> it is a stateme signedy

her lawyer. it is six cursory and conclusionary senses. are you saying that's a substitute for an investigation by the fbi? or some interew by the fbi under oath? >> under penalty of felony he sahis kind of event didn't would and i never did o have done something like that. >> as a federalju e, you always want the best evidence. >> he has said -- loot miss keyser's statements. >> let me move on to the another topic. you've testified to this committee this morning, this afternoon, quote. this whole two-week effort has en a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled with apparent pent-uput anger a president trump and

the 2016 election. on with my record, revenge behalf of the clinton and millions of dollars in money from outside left wing opposition groups. is i your testimony that the motivation of the courageous woman who sat where you did just aho time ago was revenge onha of a left wing conspiracy? tons?e cl >> senator, i said in my opening statement that she preferred confidentiality. and her confidentiality was destroyed by the actions of this committee. >> let me ask you this. in a speech that you gave at yale, you described, quote, falling out of the bus on to the front steps of the yale l school at 4:45 a.m.

>> i organized -- let m finish here, please. i organized a third year end of schoty for 30 of my classmates to rental a bus to go to fenwa park in boston before the a three-hour trip. i put a all theck s. you and i have discussed this before. i bought ought basebetl ti i rented the bus. i organized the trip. we went to fenwaypark. roger clemens was pitching for the red sox. we had a great me. geor brett was playing third base for the royals. playing left field that night. and e, we went to the game we got back. we went out. it was a great night. >> i f apologize interrupting. i need to finish the quote before i ask you the question. the quotet ends, t you tried to, quote, pieceac things together. end quote. to recall what happened that night.

>> i know what that. >> will you quickly answer your question? >> i know what happened that night. >> go ahead. do it quickly. >> doesn't that imply to you that you had to piece things back together? you had to ask others what happened? >> okay. you take your time now and answer the question. >> definitely not.kn exactly what happened that night. it was a great night of fun. it was a great camaraderie. everyone looks bkfondly. we went out together, a group of classmates and i know exactly what happenedle the w night and i'm happy -- >> do you believe anita hill? >> senator? >> thank yo dge kavanaugh, first, i want to get into this whole that has been bandied back and forth almost endlessly about the fbi investigation process.

because i want to follow up on whatenator lee and senator sass have referenced. there's bee a lot of talk about we need an fbi investigatio in these processes which you've been through a number of times with had the fbi doe a background check with regard to a could you quickly describe that for us? what does the fbi do? statementsgathers eyave don resolve credibility. they gather the information and the credibility determination is made by the ultimate fact finds. in t case is the united states senate. the committee, of course, hears the gathered evidence. >> and the fbi tn giveshat report to the white house, if i understand it. the white house then transers it to the senate. >> that's my understanding. >> and it has been said many times. the fbi n does make judgments.

it gives the senate committ information. at that point in time, if i understand the process correctly. the united states senate judiciary committee has legal authority. if it recves informati in an fbi report that it wants to further investigate, t has legal authority to conduct further investigation. is tt correct? >> that's my understanding. >> ands tha what has been referenced here many times about how some of these wit were identified in the very latest information that we h receivede made statements that are under penalty of felony. th felony for lying to the judiciary committee. as i understand, what happens is the senate judiciary committee which has authority under law to conduct those kinds of investigations, follows upe n fbi reports to finish out the investigation that it wants with regard to any information that it receives that needs further investigation.

is that yr understanding of the process? >> that's my understanding. this is been a lot of talk. in this case, there's a lot of concern by many that there was an so much an interest in fbi investigation as there was in delay. i'm not going to get to that unless i have time. i want to talk about what that in the senat committee's investigation. because as i understand it, this may be more of a question to thh rman. as soon as we received the information, which was about 45 da o afterers on the committee received it, we conducted an investigation. is that correct? i'm sorry to turn theon questig to you but we began that legal senate judiciary committee investigatio >> yes. >> and that investigation involved our fully, lawfully enabled investigators to conduct an investigation. if i understant correctly, the democratic members of e

committe refused to participate in that investigation. >> yes. >> so we have conducted the in vstigation. thy kinds of things that my colleagues on the other side art askit we tell the fbi to do, this committee has the authority to do tit. ans committee does and it has done it. there may be more demands from more interviews and more investigation. but when you judge kanaugh have referenced the testimony from thoseho are identified as being athis event, the testimony that has been received is information that has been received pursuant to a senate committee investigation. i think it should be made clear. i think there's been aba lot of and forth about we're not getting information. we're not looking at this. we don't want to look into the investigation or see what happened. the reality is this committee immediately and thoroughly investigated every witness that has been identied to us. and we have statements under

penalty of felony from them. i've got 45 seconds left. i'm going to ask you a quick quo timing.ha yoa meeting with senator feinstein on august 20? >> that's my understanding. helped dr. ford t retain the law firm between july 30th and august 7th. i want to you clarify. in the y meeting that had two weeks or more later, this issue t raised. >> the issue was not raised. >> thank you. my time isup. >> we'll take a five-minute break now. we continue to watch the questioning of brett kavanaugh on this marathon dave hearings that began at 10:00te