dr. blasey ford: no. >> why not? dr. blasey ford: i was not interested in pursuing the media route, particularly. i felt that one was enough, the washington post. and i was nervous about doing that. my preference was to talk with a congressperson. >> the washington post texted back that someone would get you in touch with a reporter. did you subsequently talk to a reporter with the washington post? dr. blasey ford: yes, under the encrypted app and off the record. >> who was that reporter? dr. blasey ford: emma brown. >> the person who ultimately wrote the story? dr. blasey ford: correct. any member ofk to congress, and again, remember that it includes the senate, house of representatives, or any congressional staff members, about your allegations between july 10 and july 30, the date of your letter to senator feinstein questio? the met with congresswoman's staff, i think on july 18 on the wednesday, then on the friday. didhen you met with her, you meet with her alone or did someone come with you? dr. blasey ford: i was al

the republicans refuse an investigation of the charges by dr. ford. dr. ord has called for the fbi to investigate her own charges. they refuse. if they truly believed that there was no evidence, no witness to back up the charges of dr. ford, wouldn't they obviously have called the fbi and said do your job? find what you can, and we're confident at the end that judge kavanaugh will be exonerated. but they haven't. they haven't. and despite all the calls for fairness, fairness over and over again by senator mcconnell, fairness would dictate that a nonpartisan investigative group like the fbi look into t this matter and come to conclusions,, whatever they may be. listen to what senator mcconnell said this morning. justice matters, he said. evidence matters, he said. facts matter, he said. i might add, an fbi investigation matters, , too. because it would get to the bottom of all three of those things. and yet the white house, the president, senator mcconnell and republicans have resisted this fbi investigation, despite dr. ford asking ford it. as far as the p

dr. ford's charges. ule said we are neither going to ignore or insult dr. ford. i thought that was a good standard. unfortunately, since she said that, neither the president nor many republican leaders have lived up to it. i really come to this as a member of the senate judiciary committee trying to think about the gravity of the situation and what is fair. in this situation, we have dr. ford coming forward. i've talked to many of my staffers and friends back home about her motivation. but in the does she have to gain by putting herself in her family through this? what is at the end of it for her? i can't see any positives other than the satisfaction that she is pursuing what she perceives to be true. she's exposing herself to ridicule, harassment and even my president of the united case in history that america is in danger and they have to move out of their homes or computers have been hacked. she's had to engage attorneys and get into lengthy negotiations with republicans in the senate just for a chance to come and tell her story. this woman who had a family an

bottom line, dr. ford had nothing to gain by doing this, nothing and still has nothing to gain, but then there is one overriding fact here which senator mcconnell continues to ignore. let me take you back in history. 27 years ago was the clarence thomas hearing, i was in the house at the time, but i read about it and followed it like most americans did. the very day that the senate judiciary committee chairman joe biden received the letter from anita hill charging sexuality misconduct by clarence thomas, that same day chairman biden sent the letter to the president george w. bush white house, to the white house council c boyden gray. and c boyden gray that very same day ordered the federal bureau of investigation to investigate the charges by anita hill. there have been a lot of comments whether that investigation was adequate or preemptory, and following comments whether the hearing was adequate and preemptory. the instinct of the george w. bush white house, investigate it. don't assume it's true, don't a

dr. ford said were also at the party. these staples were provided to us under penalty of felony by lying -- if you lie to congress. as soon as my team learned the names of three potential witnesses, we reached out requesting an interview. in response all three submitted statements to us denying any knowledge of the gathering, dr. ford described. if we had calls with them we would have invited the minority to join. any time we received any information regarding judge kavanaugh we've sought to immediately follow through and investigate. dr. ford's letter for weeks and the staff told us that they believed it is, quote, highly inappropriate to have these follow-up calls before the fbi finishes its investigation, end quote, even though the fbi had completed its background information when we followed up with judge kavanaugh after we received dr. ford's allegations, the ranking member staff joined us, even though these calls are usually done on a bipartisan basis. they joined other calls with the ju

dr. ford and judge kavanaugh have been through a terrible couple weeks. they and their families have received file 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 have been treated, and i intend, hopefully, for today's hearing to be safe, comfortable and dignified to both of our witnesses. i hope my colleagues will join me in this effort of the show of civility. with that said i lament that this hearing, how this hearing has come about. on july 9, 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 shortlist of supreme court more than nine months ago in november 2017. as part of judge kavanaugh's

these are people that dr. ford identified as witnesses to the assault that she claims judge kavanaugh perpetrated. yet thes witnesses she identifid said they have no knowledge of such an event. we also need to remember the context in which all of this is occurring. 65 women who went to high school with judge kavanaugh have written a letter saying he has always behaved honorably toward them and treating them with respect. but that doesn't mean that dr. ford is not entitled to be heard. quite the contrary. she has a story to tell, and as the father of two daughters myself, i want to hear that story. i want to compare it to judge kavanaugh's unequivocal denial and judge for myself the reliability of each. as a former judge myself for 13 years, and attorney general for four, i think that doing anything less would be shirking my duty. we owe dr. ford our time, our attention and our best efforts at discerning t the truth. that means her claims will be tested, examined, and new information perhaps will be brought to light

dr. ford asked for confidentiality. that's what i did. we all know that if i referred her allegations to the fbi, when she would not come forward, there would have been nothing to do. the fbi would have had an anonymous allegation with no name, no contact information and no way to follow up. in addition, dr. ford's allegations were referred to the fbi on september 12th, over two weeks ago. if the president and the republican majority had asked for the fbi to do an investigation at that time, like we asked, it would likely be finished by now. most importantly, when judge kavanaugh talked to republicans repeatedly, none of us have spoken to or questioned mark judge, patrick smyth, leland keyser. none of us approached james roche, lynne or chris. not one senator, as far as i know, has had the opportunity, from, opportunity to or question deborah ramirez or julie swetnick. my colleagues are right, we should not rush to judgment. it's not fair to assume judge kavanaugh is guilty without gathering t

dr. ford's and dr. ford's alone, and i cannot rule out that the person who leaked this information had a partisan agenda. but i am certain ranking member feinstein and her staff did not disclose dr. ford's account prior to that date because it was not theirs to share. and i think it's regrettable that long-serving, honorable colleagues of hers have questioned her hoe tiffs. i know since the day that my democratic colleagues and i learned of these allegations we had one consistent request, to allow the f.b.i. to investigate them in a nonpartisan, professional, even-handed manner and deliver their findings to us so we can reach a conclusion. that same night ranking member feinstein sent a letter requesting such an investigation. to suggest that senate staff interviews or letters from lawyers are an adequate substitute for a robust f.b.i. fact-gathering process that we might then weigh is not credible and reflects, sadly, a willful blindness to the dysfunction of our institution. to my colleagues across the

dr. ford's and dr. ford's alone. and i cannot rule out the person who leaked this information had a partisan agenda but i am certain ranking member feinstein and her staff did not disclose dr. ford's account prior to that date because it was not theirs to share and i think it is regrettable that long serving honorable colleagues of hers have questioned her motives. i know since the day that my democratic colleagues and i learned of these allegations, we have had one consistent request to allow the fbi to investigate them in a nonpartisan professional evenhanded manner and deliver their findings to us so that we could reach a conclusion. that same night, ranking member feinstein sent a letter requesting such an investigation. to suggest that senate staff interviews or letters from lawyers are in adequate substitute for a robust fbi fact gathering process is not credible and reflects sadly willful blindness to the dysfunction of our institution. to my colleagues across the aisle, you know me. even with those who we pas

dr. ford's and dr. ford's alone. i cannot rule out that the person who leaked this information had a partisan agenda. i am certain ranking member fine desi stein and her staff did not leak it. long serving honorable colleagues have of hers questioned her motives. i know since the day my democratic colleagues and i learned of these allegations, we had one consistent request. to allow the fbi to investigate them in a nonpartisan, professional, even handed manner and deliver their findings so we could reach a conclusion. ranking member feinstein sent a letter requesting such an investigation. to suggest that senate staff interviews or letters from lawyers are an adequate substitute for a fact gathering process is not credible and reflects a willful blindness to the disfuchkz of our institution. to my colleagues across the aisle. you know me. you know i try to be fair to those before us and i respect the process of those with whom i passionately disagree. if i were convinced this was nothing more than a partisan hit job

dr. ford asked for confidentiality. and that's what i did. we all know that if i had referred her allegations to the fbi, when she would not come forward, there would have been nothing to do. the fbi would have had an anonymous allegation with no name, no contact information, and no way to follow up. in addition, dr. ford's allegations were referred to the fbi on september 12th, over two weeks ago. if the president and the republican majority had asked for the fbi to do an investigation at that time, like we asked, it would likely be finished by now. and most importantly, when judge kavanaugh has talked to republicans repeatedly, none of us have spoken to or questioned mark judge, patrick smyth, leland keyser, or the polygraph examiner. none of us have talked to or questioned james roach, lynn brooks, liz swisher, tom cane, or chris dudley. not one senator, as far as i know, has had the opportunity to or question deborah ramirez or julie swetnick. my colleagues are right that we should not rus

dr. ford's lawyer. their response to this threatened deadline of 10:00 p.m. to make up your mind, and i'm going to read you the final paragraph of what debra katz said to the committee staff in response to this threatened deadline tonight of 10:00 p.m. she said the 10:00 p.m. deadline is arbitrary. it's sole purpose is to bully dr. ford and deprive her of the ability to make a considered decision that has life altering implications for her and her family. she has already been forced out of her home and continues to be subjected to harassment, hate mail and death threats. our modest request is that she be given an additional day to make her decision. and i'm so glad that debra katz has used the word "bullied" to describe exactly what chuck grassly and all the republicans in the senate are trying to do. because every republican senator has joined chuck grassly in the bullying tactics chuck grassly has been using with dr. ford. the first deadline senator grassly gave to professor blasy ford to ag

dr. ford, with nothing to feign, as stepped -- dr. ford, with nothing to gain, has stepped forward and told her story. she has subjected her family and her fame. on the same token, judge kavanaugh is entitled to tell his story. and i hope he will. he will have to explain to this committee why he didn't call for a federal bureau of investigation effort on his own behalf to establish the facts, the evidence, the witnesses, if there were any. he didn't. and that is a fact. we also know that this charge that senator mcconnell made that senator schumer made up his mind on the kavanaugh nomination early is true in some respects. senator schumer announced his position on this nomination early. but if you've been listening to the speeches given by senator mcconnell on the floor from the start, you certainly know where his vote has been. he says he's looking forward to hearing the testimony on thursday. well, clearly he's made up his mind before he hears that testimony. so to fault senator schumer for taking a position on this nomination early,

so dr. ford will be heard, thank, to chairman grassley and despite the irresponsibility of senate democrats who ignored her allegation for weeks and then discarded her request for confidentiality and leaked it to the press. so let me walk through this again. the ranking democrat on the judiciary committee received a letter from dr. ford all the way back in july in which she stated her allegation and asked for confidentiality. mr. president, that was in july. the committee's thorough review of judge kavanaugh was just getting started. there was ample time to vet this allegation in a serious and bipartisan manner that would have maintained confidentiality and honored dr. ford's request for privacy. all the democrats needed to do was go through proper channels, share the information with their republican colleagues so the committee could tackle it together. but that's not what senate democrats did. this is the democratic caucus whose leader, my friend, the senior senator from new york, said just hou

third, dr. ford has said that this event occurred at a house near columbia country club on the corner of connecticut country club and east/west highway. she said there were four other people at the house. but none of those people more i lived near columbia country club. and the summer of 1982, dr. ford was 15 and could not drive yet and she did not drive near columbia country club. she said that she had one beer at the party of the but she does not say how she got to the house in question or how she got home or whose house it was. fourth, i've submitted to the committee detailed calendars recording my activities in the summer of 1982. why do i keep calendars? my dad started to keep detailed calendars of his life in 1978. dyhe did so as a calendar and a diary. a vorganized guy to put it mildly. christmastime, we sit around and tell old stories. old milestones and old wedding, old events from his calendars. in ninth grade in 1980, i started keeping calendars of my own. for me also it is a calendar and

says, dr. fordommittee's request to provide her firsthand knowledge of brett kavanaugh's sexual misconduct next week although many aspects of the proposal you proceeded via e-mail on september 21st, 2018 at are fundamentally inconsistent with the committee's promise with fair and impartial investigation into her allegations, we are disappointed with the leaks and the bullying that have tainted the process. we are hopeful to reach agreement and later this afternoon to continue negotiations, sincerely debra, joel, your reaction? >> my reaction is they are concerned that this is going to end up being sort of a kangaroo-type hearing where there's no real facts, the fbi investigation which is standard for a nominee should be reopened to ensure that the facts are given and clearly she feels like she's been bullied, she's been pushed to testify without having background work done as is always the case with nominees. arthel: by the fbi. >> which is normal. fbi investigations for background of nominees is a

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 conduc

dr. ford's mouth with your hand? >> no. >> dr. ford described ande in where you tried to remove her clothes. have you ever tried toemove her clothes? >> no. >> referring back to the definition of sexual behavior that i have given you,ave you er at any time engaged in sexual behavior with dr. ford? >> no. >> have you ever engaged in sexual behavior f with dr.d even if it was consensual? >> no. >> i want to talk about your calendars. youubmitted to the committee copies of the handwritten calendars thatou've talked about for the months of may, june, july and august of 1982. do you have them in front of you? >> i do. >> did you create thesear cale in the sense of all the handwriting that's on them? >> s. >> is it exclusively your handwriting? >> yes. >> whedid youake these entries? >> in .19 >> has anything changed -- been changed for those since 1982? >> no. >> do these calendars represent your plans for each day or do dey document, in other words, prospectively, o they document what actually occurred more like a diary? >> they're bot

third, dr. ford has said this event occurred at a house near columbia country club, which is at the corner of connecticut avenue and the east west highway in c

and so tonight dr. ford is making demands on that committee that had been demanding her testimony in what would be a rushed hearing next monday. attorneys for professor christine blasey ford have told chuck grassley, the senate judiciary committee, a written response to his request for her to testify about the accusations against supreme court nominee brett kavanagh. an fbi investigation of the incident should be the first step in addressing her allegations, a full investigation by law enforcement officials will ensure that the crucial facts and witnesses in this matter are assessed in a nonpartisan manner and that the committee is fully informed before conducting any hearing or making any decisions. >>> lisa banks, one of dr. ford's attorneys, was asked tonight if this means that dr. ford will refuse to testify in the hearing that is now scheduled for monday. >> she will talk with the committee. she's not prepared to talk with them at a hearing on monday. this just came out 48 hours ago. >> so point blank,

dr. ford were also at the party, these statements were provided to us under penalty of felony by -- if you lie to congress as soon as my team learned the names of these three potential witnesses, we immediately reached out to them, requesting an interview in response all three submitted statements to us denying any knowledge of the gathering dr. ford described. if we had calls with them, we would have invited the minority to join. every time we've received any minformation regarding judge we've sought to immediately follow through and investigate. stafffo told us it is, quote, highly inappropriate to have the follow-up calls before the fbi finishes its investigation, end quote, even though the fbi had completed its background information. when we followed up with judge kavanaugh after we received dr. ford's allegations, the ranking member staff didn't join us even though these calls are usually done on a bipartisan basis. they joined other calls with the judge but they didn't participate or as

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 invite it. both dr. ford and judge kavanaugh have been through a terrible couple weeks. they and their families have received vile threats. what they have endured ought to be considered by all of us as unacceptable and a poor reflection on the state of civility in our democracy. so i want to apologize to you both for the way you've been treated and i intend hopefully for today's hearing to be safe, comfortable, and dignified for both of our witnesses. i hope my colleagues will join me in that is effort of a show of civility. with that said, i'll lament 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 position

dr. ford's mouth with your hand? >> no. >> dr. ford described an incident where you tried to remove her clothes. have you ever tried to remove her clothes? >> no. >> referring back to the definition of sexual behavior that i have given you, have you ever at anytime engaged in sexual behavior with dr. ford? >> no. >> have you ever engaged in sexual behavior with dr. ford even if it was consensual? >> no. >> want to talk about your calendars. you submitted to the committee copies of the handwritten calendars that you talked about for the months of may, june, july and august of 1982. you have them in front of you? >> i do. >> did you create these calendars in the sense of all the handwriting that is on them? >> yes. >> okay. is it exclusively your hand writing? >> yes. >> when did you make these entries? >> in 1982. >> has anyone changed, been changed for those since 1982? >> no. >> do these calendars represent your plans for each day or do they document, in other words, prospectively or do they document what actually occurred, more l

dr. ford and judge kavanagh as well as his willingness to allow this to go forward subject to his request. >> mr. chairman. >> i think i'll call on senator feinstein. and then -- >> if i through the chair could ask a question of senator flake. does your amendment include continuing the investigation during this period of time? >> if i can responsible. there is no amendment. i'm simply stating -- the discussion that we had between us all, i would hope and i think we have some agreement before, that the democrats who have been, i think, justifiably uncomfortable moving ahead -- >> we are going leave the committee meeting now and take you live to the floor or the us senate but you can continue to watch the meeting on c-span3 or online at c-span.org. the senate expected to consider legislation dealing with the federal aviation administration. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. infinite spirit

third, dr. ford has said that this event occurred at a house near columbia country club which is at the corner of connecticut avenue and east-west highway in chevy chase, maryland. in her letter to senator feinstein, she said that there were four other people at the house, but none of those people nor i lived near columbia country club as of the summer of 1982. dr. ford was 15 and could not drive yet. she did not live near columbia country club. she says confidently that she had one beer at the party, but she does not say how she got to the house in question or how she got home, or whose house it was. fourth, i have submitted to this committee detailed calendars recording my activities in the summer of 1982. why did i keep calendars? my dad started keeping detailed calendars of his life in 1978. he did so as both a calendar and a diary. very organized guy, to put it mildly. christmastime, we sat around and he would regale us with stories, old milestones, old weddings, old events from his calendars. i

dr. ford's and other's testimony than his own. if dr. ford's testimony is true, i hope we can all agree kavanaugh has no business on the court, and i for one believed her. but set aside my own belief, as a prosecutor, i am horrified at what the committee has done. terminating the fbi background investigation before these new allegations were even considered. doing partisan interviews bipartisan staffers declaredly determined to force the nominee through. letting kavanaugh's alleged accomplice in the assault, the guy in the room with him when it happened, get away with a lawyer's letter and no testimony? no cross examination, the lawyers in the room will know the reverence with which wigmore is cited as legal authority in decisions across the country and for decades. beyond any doubt he wrote, the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth is cross-examination. mark judge is in hiding instead of under subpoena, and that greatest legal engine has been deliberately disabled in this matter. let me have one example of where

if either dr. ford or judge kavanaugh feel that senate rule 26 .5 on to be involved, they should simply say so. senator feinstein. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i will 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 .ember 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. of to appoint -- up to a point where the witness was willing to come forward. i think as i make my remarks, perhaps you will see why. because how women are treated in the united states with this kind wanting a is really lot of reform. and i will get to that for a minute. it in the meantime, good morning, dr. ford. thank you for coming forward and being willing to share your story with us. i know this was not easy for you. but before you get your testimony -- and the chairman chose not to do this -- i think it is important to make sure you are properly intr

>> yes. >> reporter: dr. ford revealed her allegation to her local congresswoman in july, but her story didn't become public until about two weeks ago. republicans are furious with democrats over this. dr. ford took and passed a lie detector test. the prosecutor wanted to know more. >> did you pay for the polygraph yourself? >> i don't -- i don't think so. >> i believe you said it hasn't been paid for yet. is that correct? >> let me put an end to this mystery. her lawyers have paid for her polygraph. >> reporter: as republicans just sat there in silence, democrats heaped praise on the witness, as she held back tears. >> you are a true profile in courage. >> you have inspired and you have enlightened men in america, to listen respectfully to women survivors, and men who have survived sexual attack. >> reporter: and when it was over, a gracious moment from republican chairman chuck grassley. >> i thank you very much for your testimony, more importantly, for your bravery coming out and trying to answer our questions

dr. ford's request. they agreed that brett kavanaugh would not be in the room. but did not agree to her request that kavanaugh testify you first. dr. ford requested that only senators be allowed to ask questions, senator grassley said the committee will reserve the option to have female staff attorneys who are sensitive to the particulars of dr. ford's allegations and are experienced investigators, question both witnesses, we believe this will allow for informed questioning, will generate the insightful testimony and help depoliticize the hearing. chairman grassley has refused dr. ford's request that the committee subpoena the testimony of mark judge who dr. ford says was in the room when brett kavanaugh sexually assaulted her and participated in that assault. the ten democrats sent a letter to chairman grassley today saying "the committee should at a minimum hear from the fbi, the individual who administered dr. ford's polygraph test and all witnesses to the event, including mark judge, each

, mr ayres and denied the allegations by dr ford, mrayres and —— denied the allegations by dr ford, mrnd —— mr mears... denied the allegations by dr ford, mr ayres and -- mr mears. .. yes. all three of these women have asked the fbi to investigate their claims. i listened carefully to what you said, your concern is evident and clear, and if you're very confident of your position, and you appeared to be, why are you not also asking the fbi to investigate these claims? senator, i will do whatever the committee wants. i wanted a hearing today after the allegation came up. i wanted to be here that day. instead, ten days past where all this nonsense is coming out, i'm in gains, i'm in votes in rhode island, i'm in colorado, i decided all over the place. these things are printed and run breathlessly by cable news. i wanted a hearing next day. my family has been destroyed by this, senator, destroyed. and whatever the committee decides, i'm all in. i'm all in immediately. and the terrible and hard part of this is, when we get in allegation, we are not in a position to prove it or disprove it.

dr. christine blasey ford. the hearing getting testy and kavanaugh and ford face a barrage of questions about the alleged attack that may have happened 35 years ago. heather hanson and vince coglianese. vince isn't with us yet. tammy, your assessment of what we have seen so far. tammy: it's a shame in general this is even happening. two classic americans dragged through the mud in a process that should have been a collegiate process of looking for the truth and confirming someone for the highest court in the land in the greatest country on earth. it turned into a freaking circus. it's shameful. and we know why it's happening. it's a political maneuver. in the treatment of dr. ford. i think something happened to her, i just don't think judge kavanaugh did it. she of course would be sympathetic. but the issue becomes the treatment of judge kavanaugh. you have seen her treated sometimes with kid gloves. women can take the heat of the kitchen when they are asserting their truth. judge kavanaugh, you have see the po

allow dr. fordr allegations in a setting that she is comfortable with, publicly or privately under oath. everybody is a witness here and understand that the senate and senator jones this has investigative authority here. to say it's has to be the fbi is incorrect in the constitution. there is a reason the constitution says advice and consent of the u.s. senate. >> shannon: is it possible to divorce politics from this? >> you would hope it would be that way. that's not the world we live in. we live in a world that is divided. it's a free country. you don't like seeing a process like this, with no disrespect to dr. ford. if senator feinstein had this information, why didn't she send it to the fbi 2 months ago? she had in july. send it to the fbi. she did not. there may be reasons and dr. ford came forward and her lawyer giving her silent advice. -- her client advice. >> shannon: we will wait for monday. good to see you. tonight we look at a remarkable case out of oregon with an alleged sexual assault.

dr. ford's mouth with your hand? >> no. >> dr. ford described an incident where you tried to remove her clothes. have you ever tried to remove her clothes? >> no. >> referring back to the definition of sexual behavior that i have given you, have you ever, at any time engaged in sexual behavior with dr. ford? >> no. >> have you ever engaged in sexual behavior with dr. ford even if it was consensual? >> no. >> i want to talk about your calendars. you submitted to the committee copies of the handwritten calendars that you've talked about for the months of may, june, july and august of 1982. you have them in front of you? >> i do. >> did you create these calendars, in the sense all of the handwriting that's on them? >> yes. >> okay. is it exclusively your handwriting? >> yes. >> when did you make these entries? >> in 1982. >> has anything changed -- been changed for those since 1982? >> no. >> do these calendars represent your plans for each day or do they document, in other words, prospectively, or do they document what actually occur

dr. ford's and others' testimony than his own. if dr. ford's testimony is true, i hope we can all agree kavanaugh has no business on the court. and i, for one, believed her. but set aside my own belief. as a prosecutor, i am horrified at what the committee has done. terminating the fbi background investigation before these new allegations were even considered. doing partisan interviews bipartisan stafferers, declaredly determined to force the nominee through. letting kavanaugh's alleged accomplice in the assault, the guy in the room with him when it happened, get away with a lawyer's letter and no testimony, no cross-examination. the lawyers in the room will know the reverence with which wigmore is cited as league authority in decisions across the country and for decades. beyond any doubt, he wrote, the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth is cross-examination. mark judge is in hiding instead of under subpoena. and that greatest legal engine has been deliberately disabled in this matter. let me have one example o

dr. ford. i think that he has stated in his opening statement as well as in his television appearance earlier this week, he's given his view on dr. ford, but i think without the promise of additional hearings as to these other allegations, i would expect a full investigate of what those other things are and put him on the record under oath to respond to those other allegations that have come out just this week. obviously on the republican side, they are going to be trying to boost his credibility. there will be a lot of leading questions if there even are questions, and so you'll see the difference -- similar to how we saw earlier this morning. i wouldn't expect a lot on dr. ford from the democratic side. it will be very interesting to see how he responds to the questions about drinking and whether his answers are shifting, as cynthia said they have started to. >> what's so remarkable is that anita hill happened in 1991 and there's still no process put in place -- >> exactly. >> -- to deal wit

dr. ford's memory of the assault is very clear. dr. or has asked you all kinds of questions about who you called and when, asking details that would be asked in a cross examination of a witness in a criminal trial. but this is not a criminal proceeding. this is a confirmation proceeding. i think i know what she's trying to get at. i'll just ask you very plainly, dr. ford, is there a political motivation for your coming forward with your account of the assault by brett kavanaugh? >> no, and i'd like to reiterate, again, i was trying to get the information to you while there was still a list of other -- >> thank you. >> -- what looked like equally qualified candidates. >> and yet they're not here to testify. dr. ford, i'd like to join my colleagues who have thanked you for coming forward today. and i -- and we all admire you for what you're doing. i understand why you have come forward. you wanted us and the american people to know what you knew about the character, the character of the man we are considering for a lifetime appointment to

i think dr. ford and her family have been treated incredibly poorly by senate democrats and the media. you both senior good names dragged through the mud. orly by senate democrats and the media. you both senior good names dragged through the mud. and this has been sadly one of the most shameful chapters in the history of the united states senate. let me say to you and your family, thank you for a lifetime of public service. i will say watching your mothers pained face has been heart wrenching as she has seen her sons character dragged through the mud after not only your lifetime of public service, but her lifetime of public service as well. and i know as a father there has been nothing more painful to you than talking to your daughters and explaining these attacks the media is airing. i also believe that the american people are fair-minded people. that the american people can set aside the partisan warfare of washington and look to substance and facts. and that is the charge of this committee. there h

dr. christine blasey-ford. she will be surrounded by counsel, with her friends behind her. >>> judge brett kavanaugh, to serve as associate justice on our supreme court. we will hear from two witnesses, dr. christine blasey-ford and judge kavanaugh. thanks, of course, to dr. ford and judge kavanaugh for accepting our committee's invitation to testify and also thank them for their volunteering to testify before we even invited. both dr. ford and judge kavanaugh have been through a terrible couple weeks. they and their families have received vile threats. what they have endured ought to be considered by all of us as unacceptable and a poor reflection on the state of civility in our democracy. so i want to apologize to you both for the way you've been treated. and i intend, hopefully for today's hearing, to be safe, comfortable and dignified for both of our witnesses. i hope my colleagues will join me in this effort of a show of civility. with that said, i will lament that this hearing -- how this hearing has come

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 r

dr. ford as lying or mistaken? those are two very different approaches. >> he has as of now never said lying, he has only said mistaken. but president trump and kavanaugh's defenders have suggested she is lying. >> but now he has heard her say i am 100% sure it was brett kavanaugh. so it's really hard to go the mistaken route if she's so insistent. i don't really know what's the best way but that's a really important choice he has to make. >> so this opening statement is going to set the tone, right? just in the break i talked to two people who have been really involved in this confirmation long before these allegations and neither of them had any idea what he was going to say. they hadn't heard and didn't know what the opening statement was. maybe he's thinking about himself now, not thinking about the republicans on the committee, he's not thinking about the white house. he's thinking about the fact this is his current job maybe, the supreme court see the and his reputation forever. in the s