the judiciary committee is no stranger to these sorts of allegations. as one of our own members stepped down from this congress after acknowledging his own misconduct. but if has brett kavanaugh says the conduct in question never occurred, he shouldn't be used as some sort of se sacrificial lamb to causes and concerns to which he is in no way attached or implicated. that would be unjust. that would be the opposite of fair and it would establish a terrible precedent for nominees moving forward. we can't and shouldn't let that happen. mister chairman, mister president, chairman grassley, chairman of the judiciary committee, i believe has done an extreme very job under difficult circumstances. he has been extra nearly gracious in trying to accommodate doctor ford. that is what we have all wanted. even after legal team, for deadlines over the course of last week. i have to be honest, though. some of the tactics waged so far make me wonder if doctor ford is still in control of her own story and her own circumstances. it makes me wonder whether she is being e

anonymity of doctor ford as a presiding officer knows and a long time member of the senate judiciary committee , frequently during the course of the background investigation we learn w things that senators will want to ask that some are so sensitive involving allegations we don't know if there is a basis, so handled in a careful manner and generally not made available to members of the judiciary committee staff because they are embarrassing and we have to get to the bottom of them. with the person making the accusation as well as the nominee. none of that happened because we know the ranking member and senator feinstein sat on this letter for six weeks. after all the 1000 plus testions for the record to examine not only the nomine nominee, going through the fbi background investigation of the judiciary committee staf staff, frankly it puts doctor ford in the uncomfortable position but with consequences in terms of the nominee. so to talk about the impact of this accusation on his children, marriage and i reputation. this is not something any of us should welcome or take lightly especially with

when the chairman of the judiciary committee, when ranking member of the judiciary committee learned of anita hill's accusations the fbi was immediately ordered to conduct an investigation. and chuck grassly thought that was exactly the right thing to do back when he was a junior member of the judiciary committee. orin hatch was on the judiciary committee when anita hill testified. and he could not resist pouring over the details publicly over the pornography he says anita hill told her at work. and here is what orin hatch said about the fbi investigation of anita hill's accusations. >> chairman biden and the ranking member thurman, when they heard about this the first time they immediately ordered this fbi investigation, which was a very right thing to do. it's the appropriate thing to do. they did what every other chairman and ranking member have done in the past. and the investigation was done and it was a good investigation. >> they immediately ordered this fbi investigation, which was a very right thing to do. that is kind of unique ly orin hatch verbiage. it's the appropriate t

to take place. >> in terms of the discussions that you have tried to start with the senate judiciary committee as they consider judge kavanaugh's nomination, have any of those discussions included the possibility of other people also offering testimony to the committee or being interviewed by committee investigators, has that either come up or is that part of what you would be willing to talk with the committee about? >> here is the problem, rachel, is they won't talk to us. the minority party spoke to us for the very first time tonight, and the majority party wouldn't speak to us. so we don't know what they're willing to do. the demand that they keep making of us is give us every piece of information that you have now and then we can talk about scheduling a phone call. and that's just not the kind of partisan game playing that our client deserves. that's not fair to her. >> why do you see that as partisan game playing, just as an attorney in terms of advising your client here, why does that -- why is that something you don't want to do? >> you know, the idea that they won't even talk to her c

the judiciary committee is scheduled to vote on judge kavanagh's nomination on friday. ope that tomorrow's hearing gives us some guidance on how we are to vote. but those of us on the committee have to be prepared for the possibility, indeed, the likelihood that there will be no definitive answers to the large questions before us. in legal terms, the outcome might not be dispositive. while he can only vote yes or no, i hope that we in this body will acknowledge that we don't have all the answers. we are imperfect humans. we will make imperfect decisions. this monumental decision will no doubt fit that description. up or down, yes or no, however this vote goes, i'm confident in saying that it will forever be steeped in doubt. this doubt is the only thing of which i am confident about this proce process. i say to all of my colleagues. for this process to be a process, we have to have open minds. we must listen, we must do our best, seek the truth in good faith. that is our only duty. thank you, madam president, i yield the floor. >> senator jeff flake, the arizona republic

today the senate judiciary committee began hearings on judge brett kavanaugh's nomination to the supreme court. democrats on the committee have pointed out that over 40,000, 40,000 of judge kavanaugh's documents were handed over to the committee last night. it's the latest insult in what has been an insulting process for reviewing the nominee's record on the issues. not just insulting to democrats in the senate, insulting to the senate as a whole and insulting to the american people, like, you know we can jam this through and it doesn't matter what you think, what you need to know. more than 90% of the nominee's record has been shielded from public scrutiny. the chairman keeps claiming, well, there are several hundred thousand pages made available. that is not the point. if only 7% of the documents are made available, the question is what looms in the other 93%. it's the percentage that matters. because we want to know what's hidden. furthermore, we have no knowledge of why we were given these documents and not given the vast bulk of the documents. what is the rule? is there some objecti

he was a consultant with -- >> a consultant with the judiciary committee, working with the same pr firm, let's say, -- there is no interconnected right-wing committee occasions attack machine here. dear entry had been himself fired from his p previous job de to sexual harassment. almost invariably, every time you overturn a rock, there are some guy associated with the white house announced the heaearings, who is been involved in sexual harassment. amy: explain who mike davis is. >> mike davis -- and i wrote about this in the piece you referenced. he's the chief counsel for the gop, the senate gop judiciary. grassley. it was beingy -- floated last report for public hearing was agreed to, this idea "at chuck grassley would have fair, private" questitioning period with christine blasey ford in california. he was going to send his staffers other to interviview hr in private, then come e back wih a judgment on whether or not s e was sayingng something, you kno, saying whether or not she could be credible. so what she was doing effectively was suggesting he was in his chief counsel out to cal

lisa, should they be allowed to pick a lawyer to ask questions for the senate judiciary committee? >> i think it's cowardly for those republicans to try to hide behind a woman. it's a cynical, manipulatetive attempt to change the optics of the reality of that committee, which is the republicans have chosen to put only men on that senate judiciary committee, and that committee has other issues. there's recent revelations about a grassley staffer who had a sexual harassment charge against him he's denied and some involvement of a pr firm that's been involved in the dirty tricks this past week we've seen with kavanaugh's friend ed wh whalen. they have a duty to ask the questions in their own name and their own voices and have the american people see that. i was the chief counsel for nominations from 2002 through the beginning of of 2005, so i didn't work on the supreme court but i worked extensively on brett kavanaugh's nomination when he was nominated for the d.c. circuit. >> so you're familiar with him and his case at this moment. >> yes. >> should they be allowed to have representat

ford and her brilliant lawyer say to the judiciary committee, republicans on the judiciary committee, you might have learned nothing in the last 26 years, but we have. >> yeah. >> and they are in control. thank you, rachel. >> thanks, lawrence. >> well, we begin with breaking news tonight about the reopening of brett kavanagh's confirmation hearing for united states supreme court in the senate judiciary committee. in the 27 years since anita hill was victimized by the republicans on the committee when she came forward with sexual harassment charges against republican supreme court nominee clarence thomas, the republicans on that committee have obviously learned absolutely nothing. but professor christine blasey ford has learned a great deal about how not to be victimized by those same republicans on that side committee. 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 t

>> was interesting as the republicans here, two republicans on the on the senate judiciary committee, flake from arizona, senator corker from tennessee, have both said that they need more time. the republicans on the committee say "we need more time." >> dana: i'm just curious if you think that -- >> sure, i understand. if you also have susan collins and lisa murkowski, two republicans, republican women, who have just said that they need to make up their minds about this, no red-state democrat is going to get ahead of those four republicans. i would say to you this -- if, indeed, the republicans on the committee -- and the republicans in the senate -- are raising their own concerns about spending the time to analyze this, there is no way that red-state democrats or anybody else for that matter would say "no, we think we should press ahead. we will vote for the guy." that's not going to happen. this one issue has given cover to those red-state democrats better than anybody else could have. >> dana: david, i will give you the last word. >> other david. [laughter] >> dana: thank you. >>

never have i seen an outside counsel question witnesses before the senate judiciary committee. t an attempt for republican members to cover-up the fact that they have no women on their side of the aisle on the committee. buts what i think you're seeing today is that cleary dr. ford is working here in good faith. she wants to testify before the committee. but on the republican side they're facing a decency test. and so far they're failing it. they are not treating her with the respect she deserves. she certainly is reasonable for her to understand what she'd be walking into next week when she comes to testify. and i just think this additional piece of the notion that would have an outside counsel question just shows that they are embarrassed there's no gender diversity on their side of the aisle on the committee. >> the halls of the senate offices were filled with protesters today. and i want to get kristine's reaction to this, too. but i can tell you from my experience working in those offices senators are very much afraid on those kinds of days. and they're trying to duck those

in a major development, the american bar association has called on the senate judiciary committee to halt the kavanaugh confirmation process until an fbi investigation is completed. in a letter to the committee, the aba said "we make this because of our respect for the rule of law and due process under law." the aba had previously given kavanaugh its highest rating of unanimous well qualified for the supreme court. meanwhile, editors of america magazine, the national weekly published by the jesuits of the united states, called for kavanaugh's nomination to be withdrawn. georgetown preparatory school, where kavanaugh was a student when he allegedly assaulted blasey ford, is a jesuit high school. just as thursday's hearing gaveled to a close, president trump took to twitter to demand an immediate senate vote on kavanaugh's nomination, tweeting -- "judge kavanaugh showed america exactly why i nominated him. his testimony was powerful, honest, and riveting." well, today we bring you excerpts from thursday's historic hearing. we begin with dr. christine ford. the nation hears her for the f

back in 1991, when our friend senator joe biden was chairman of the judiciary committee, he had this to say to judge clarence thomas when the committee was evaluating an allegation against him. here's what joe biden said. the presumption is with you. with me, the presumption is with you, and in my opinion, it should be with you until all the evidence is in and people make a judgment. that's the chairman of the judiciary committee, joe biden, during the clarence thomas proceeding. well, my colleagues would do well to remember this commonsense principle. after all, this is america. every american understands the presumption of innocence. i'm glad that chairman grassley, his staff, and committee investigators have worked so hard to clean up this mess, clean up this mess and put together a fair process. and i'm encouraged by the committee's choice of rachel mitchell, a career prosecutor with decades of experience and and -- experience in sensitive investigations who was recognized with an award by arizona's then-democratic governor janet napalitano to lead expertise in this important proc

and jeff flake's a member of the senate judiciary committee. so if the issue of having the vote came to a vote in the committee the republicans could not have won it. and ron, that seems to have been a decisive turn for republicans realizing what they were going to have to do. brett kavanaugh has issued a written statement saying this is a completely false allegation. i have never done anything like what the accuser describes to her or to anyone. ron, that simplifies the trial position in a courtroom. if you don't believe brett kavanaugh then you also are left with at least a suspicion of perjury by brett kavanaugh. >> that's right, lawrence. it doubles down and raises the stakes on this proceeding next monday. you could imagine brett kavanaugh says, look, maybe i was drunk, a youth, i don't recall, a lot of things he could have said. but he said categorically it didn't happen. but now it's not just a question of what happened at some party decades ago, it's a question of whether or not he's going to be truthful when he testifies under oath abou

in his testimony before the judiciary committee, judge kavanaugh misled the committee on numerous occasions regarding his involvement in some of the ugliest controversies of the bush administration, including the bush administration's policies on torture, the confirmation of some deeply flawed judges like judge william pryor and charles pickering and his knowledge of the theft of democratic e-mail records by republican staff member named manny miranda. in all of those judge kavanaugh did not come clean. he did not tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth but far, far from it. judge kavanaugh was in the thick of all of those things as a pop political operative in the bush white house and yet denied any involvement. here again with these new allegations brought forward by dr. ford and others, judge kavanaugh is again issuing blanket denials but the question looms. is he credible? is he credible? he's opposed to having the f.b.i. investigate as is the majority leader, as is president trump. none of them want the facts to come out. they just want to, quote, plow right through it. if not f

the chief counsel of the senate judiciary committee tweeted after dr. blasey ford's sexual assault allegation, quote, unfazed and determined, we will confirm judge kavanaugh. and according to ms. ramirez' law, the judiciary committee isn't even interested in taking her claim seriously or getting information from her about her claims. instead of getting the facts, instead of even wanting the facts, they tried to dismiss this as a smear campaign and plow right ahead. for anyone who has ever wondered why so many survivors of sexual assault don't come forward, obviously there's trauma. but there's also the fear of this very kind of retaliation and scorn. mr. president, the question i have, that i know you have, do we value women in this country? do we value women in this country? do we listen to women when they tell us about sexual trauma? do we listen to their stories about how their lives have been forever scarred? do we take their claims seriously? or do we just disbelieve them as a matter of course? i want to echo the words of my colleague from alaska,

on capitol hill, some republicans and democrats are pushing to delay the senate judiciary committee's vote, which is scheduled for thursday. the committee chairman, the republican chuck grassley of iowa said today that the accuser deserves to be heard. but he did not mention whether he would postpone the vote. time will tell. peter doocy has more on the lawmaker's reaction ahead. first to the chief white house correspondent john roberts who is live on the north lawn. hi, john. >> hey, shep, good afternoon to you and white house pool still on national council of the american worker round table that the president is having in the roosevelt room. so far he has been talking about the economy mostly. i don't expect, i would be surprised actually, if he talks about this kavanaugh business because he has very studiously stayed off twitter and that is very unlike the president to do if he really has a mind to say something just about anything. judge kavanaugh has been here at the white house since a little after 10:00 this morning. i'm told that he will be here for pretty much the rest of the

we told you already the member staffers of the judiciary committee has met with principle players andre told to try to come together with a background they can get for dr. ford herself. now, democrats on that committee opted not to that sean spicer, former white house press secretary. sean, where is this going? what do you think? >> >> i think ultimately kavanaugh gets confirmed right now it's a political play. look, they have known about these allegations for 45 minutes, senator feinstein herself sat with kavanaugh in a private meeting. clearly didn't address it. in this current environment. >> neil: you mean 45 days? >> the letter was delivered to her by congresswoman anna herb shoe. she knew about this. she met with her privately. failed to address it then. failed to share it with any of the committee members. look, neil, i think that any woman that has the courage to stand forward and say that there was impropriety, assault or anything else deserves a lot of credit. and should be afforded the respect and dignity of someone -- of anyone who comes forward with that. that being said,

but not this farce of a hearing planned by the republicans on the judiciary committee. we should be able to do so much better. you know, we've had decades of experience since 1991, since we went through a parallel allegation regarding personal contact. how is it now 27 years later we are doing so much worse in respecting women coming forward to share their stories? why are we doing such a worse job in respecting the dignity, such a worse process in terms of soliciting the facts? such a worse process in terms of trying to turn it into a trial of a courageous woman who came forward to share her experiences? well, i have never felt so burdened by the misconduct in this chamber as i feel right now. so let's stand up for decency and dignity, honor those who come forward, respect them, listen to them, explore the stories that they share the experiences that they share so that their voices can be fairly heard before this body, and let us not let the president of the united states trample all over the constitution by violating the separation of powers and blocking our chamber f

the chief counsel of the senate judiciary committee created after dr. blasey ford's obligation on face and determined. we will confirm judge kavanaugh. and according to the lawyer, the judiciary committee isn't even interestedim in taking her claim seriously or getting information from her about her claims. instead of getting the facts, instead of even watching the facts, they tried to dismiss it as a smear campaign and plow right ahead. w for anyone who's ever wondered why so many survivors of sexual assault to come forward, obviously there is,. but there's also the fear of this veryet kind of retaliation and scorn. mr. president, the question iw have that i know you have coming to revalue women in this country? do we value them in this country? do we listen to women when they tell us about trauma? do we listen to their stories about how their lives have been forever scarred? do we take the claim seriously or do we just disbelieved them as a matter of course. i want to echo the words that colleagues from alaska. about whether or not a woman who has bee

this is a view that was a bipartisan view, expressed by a single member of the judiciary committee, republican member, that individual, senator cornyn, proceeded to note that the documents that judge abca 15 generated, authored or contributed to during his tenure as staff secretary should be conveyed to the committee and he added, quote, just seems like common sense. in other words it just seems fundamental to our responsibility here in the senate to review the record of judge abca 15. but just days after the senior republican member of the judiciary committee expressed those sentiments republican senators were summoned to the white house by the white house counsel, donald mcgann and immediately following that summoning those instructions, those directions from the white house suddenly senators are being denied the opportunity to see those documents. infected went so far as the chair of the committee not to ask for the documents after this direction from the white house. so certainly that intervention directly compromised our ability to review the record of the nominee and therefore violated s

not since anita hill has this issue been so front and center in the senate judiciary committee. it has been 27 years since anita hill, but where we are, unfortunately, is that the current situation, the senate judiciary has not developed yet a protocol to handle appropriately sexual violence or sexual harassment claims. and therefore, we are having a rush to a hearing and we believe that it is not taking the benefit of a whole 27 years of progress and development of experts and knowledge to handle and to make sure that such charges are taken seriously and that there is going to be a fair procedure. today -- i am president of the feminist majority foundation -- as we gather together, with great help from many groups in the violence community a panel of experts that can tell us exactly the procedures and protocols that could be followed. i want to thank several organizations that really helped make this possible. we did this quickly because the conversation is moving quickly. the national law center, the leadership conference of civil and human rights are not here right now, but th

the senate judiciary committee has postponed this thursday's scheduled vote on supreme court nominee judge brett kavanaugh. i, the committee will have a hearing with the judge kevin a and prayer -- and the professor who has accused the judge of assaulting her in high school. follow live coverage at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span, c-span.org, and listen on the c-span radio app. -- the committee announced announcement that was made, chuck schumer spoke briefly about the allegations on the senate floor. that president, for the past few days, new allegations have come to light about president trump's nominee to the supreme court, brett kavanaugh. these allegations ought to be treated with the utmost gravity. the allegations are extremely credible. they were made by someone who voluntarily submitted to a lie detector test, and had been discussed in the past, long before kavanaugh's nomination to the supreme court with a family therapist. i believe her. many, many americans believe her. who many women in america have been taken advantage of certainly believe her. long, women have made serious

person who carried the information before he would reveal any facts to the very people the judiciary committee and senate that may be able to drill down on the facts, which we understand is exactly what's having to happen now with the judiciary committee attorney. >> i'm told that mr. avenatti is intimating on his social media that he may run for president. but this is the weaponization of the metoo movement. the metoo movement is so important that folks like harvey weinstein are called out, that bill cosby are called out. but then it's weaponized, people with six different fbi background checks have shown to be a reputable person, one folks across the spectrum, both genders, you name it, all races, in which there is no pattern of serial activity, the presumption is he is guilty because that's the spirit of the age. that's wrong, it can happen to anybody and at some point we have to look at a life's work and judge it against someone else's end if i judge kavanaugh again avenatti, i will go a kavanaugh. >> harris: do you think a vote with just the senate judiciary committee, i know it's being r

she is a member of the senate judiciary committee.tor klobuchar, it's nice to have you with us tonight. thanks very much for being here. >> thank you, rachel. >> so i have a couple of things i want to ask you about. i want to talk to you about the now seemingly foundering -- potentially foundering nomination of brett kavanaugh to the supreme court. before i talk to you about that, though, i also want to talk to you about the sort of national fire drill we had this morning when it appeared for an hour or so that the president was about to fire deputy attorney general rod rosenstein. it was sort of a wild ride in the news this morning. but i wanted to get your impressions about what happened there and your reaction to that. >> this was truly everyone's worst fear. we have this ongoing important investigation based on our national security concerns with a man, rod rosenstein, who has been a u.s. attorney under both republican and democratic presidents, number two in the justice department, only recently announced indictments coming out o

now one would hope a lot has changed in 27 years, but if you're looking at the senate judiciary committee, not a lot has by some perspectives. at least in terms of the diversity. here's a look at the committee in 1991 and here is what it looks like now. it's still comprised mostly of all white men on the republican side. three of the senators who were part of the clarence thomas hearings are still on the committee today. there's concern when christine blasey ford faces those senators and the rest of that committee this week we may see history also look the same. ford will testify about sexual assault she alleges was committed by supreme court nominee judge brett kavanaugh back in high school, an accusation kavanaugh categorically denies. joining us now melissa murray. she testified at judge kavanaugh's confirmation hearing. sarah flicker, the women's martial national organizer. and still with us elie. let's start with this. because, melissa, you have this shall we say part of what is happening in the headlines. how are you putting in context the sort of questions you were asked versus wha

again, the judiciary committee is in a tough spot. you can understand their frustrations about the timing, you can understand their frustrations that all of these allegations are coming forward after the official confirmation hearing. but you have another woman who's going to put her name on allegations that judge brett kavanagh engaged in reprehensible behavior. can the committee in your view just go forward without asking the professionals, the fbi or some law enforcement agency to at least check out the basics? >> of course this is not a criminal case. but if we were looking at this as a criminal investigation, i mean a lot of these allegations are criminal in nature or border on being criminal in nature, that investigation usually would continue before a prosecutor would make a decision about what there was a case or there was not a us can. of course we're in a congressional hearing, in which those standards do not apply. i think if this affidavit, and i'm not sure as i said that it's actually a sworn affidavit, but we might just

eight weeks ago the judiciary committee received a letter from that christine ford was the uncorroborated allegation of misconductt. she requested the matter be handled discreetly and confidential. the responsible next step would be to alert the full committee so of confidential bipartisan investigation could begin to follow their standard practice for investigating background information. they would have questioned judge kavanaugh in their meetings or in closed session while respecting doctor ford's request for confidentiality. but democrats did not do that.th they sat on doctor ford's letter for seven weeks and kept the secret and did nothing and then through her own wishes they leaked it to the press our colleague from delaware in himself indicated in the ranking member's office the democratic committee staff likely leaked the document we know the chain of custody went to the democratic side of the judiciary committee. so mister president, does this sound like the democratic senators take the responsibility seriously to want to get to the truth? >> or does it sound like a choreographed

lawyers come out and say the judiciary committee as being unfair with the testimony. >> a lot of peopletee vote on monday unless those senators put the brakes on. again, mitch mcconnell is sticking to his guns saying we have to get him on the supreme court by 1 october. that is not written anywhere in stone. say they do have a committee vote on monday. it would take from monday until friday with all the parliamentary hurdles and procedural traps to do this by the book, it would take five full workdays so you are right up against that. even if they want to have the hearing on wednesday or thursday, they have to go through all the procedural hurdles, that pushes it back past 1 october so that is a problem. mitch mcconnell is speaking at the values voters summit saying we will follow through. people are mindful on capitol hill. would they be willing to do that? it might look bad and go back to what one republican senator, the indication is they want to hear from her but this cannot go on forever and the judiciary committee and attorney for ford are so far apart that we are never going to h

aspects of the proposal you provide via e-mail, the proposal that the majority of the senate judiciary committee put forward are fundamentally inconsistent with the committee's promise of a fair, impartial investigation into her allegations ear we're disappointed with the leaks and bullying that tainted the process we're hopeful that we can reach agreement on details. there is hope yet. how convinced are you that this will happen? >> it's more than the details that remain unresolved. the note meets the senator's demand, senator grassley's demand that there be an answer by 2:30 today. she just came under the wire to accept the idea of testifying. no resolution about wednesday or thursday or who does the questioning. there are a lot of issues between now and then to get through. but what this does it prevents the senate judiciary committee from going ahead and voting on this nomination on monday as they have been threatening to do. this guarantees this going into next week and increases the probability that we actually hear from christine blasey ford about what happened and, you know, that matters

the nomination to the supreme court hanging in the balance as the senate judiciary committee prepares to vote this morning. members of the committee heard dramatic testimony from brett kavanaugh and dr. christine blasey ford. the woman what says he sexually assaulted her when they were teenagers. now in the hands of four key senators. republican susan collins and lisa murkowski and jeff flake and joe manchin. >> collins left capitol hill without commenting. manchin says quote there are concerns people have. murkowski says she needs a chance to think about all that's gone on. a gop source close to the process tells cnn they are not sure they have the votes to push kavanaugh across the finish line. it is definitely close. we have phil mattingly with more from capitol hill. >> reporter: christine and dave, republicans are moving forward. every one of them is staring with wrapped attention. gripping testimony from christine blasey ford and supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh. after the testimony was over, more than eight hours, committee members and witnesses testifying and members back

. >> what i heard attorney john klune tell you about the way the republican staff of the judiciary committee was dealing with him as the representative of a potential witness to that committee, that is the most unprofessional conductive heard of by staff of either party on any committee. it is truly outrageous behavior. >> well, also what mr. klune told me -- not to get too into the weeds here. you worked in these hal owed halls. you know how this worked. we spoke with the committee staff, i clarified with him he meant the majority staff. the staffers who are reporting to the chairman chuck grassley. we set up a time to have a call where we would discuss how my client is going to convey her information to the committee, under what circumstances, how this is going to happen. and then they call in at the appointed time and it's only democrats there. none of the republican senators, none of the republican staff. that's just -- i mean, it's just -- it may be unprofessional. i don't know how the professional standards work here. it's weird. >> it's way beyond unprofessional. when we get started h

republicans on the senate judiciary committee hope to head off a repeat of what happened in 1991. a hill sat there, facing rough treatment by the committee after she raised allegation of sexual assault against supreme court nominee clarence thomas. let's bring in former defense attorney karen desoto, kpift vice preside -- and i want to play this first. we showed some video from 1991. want to show what we saw and heard and get your reaction. let's take a listen. >> i've got to determine what your motivation might be. are you a scorned woman? >> no. i think the one that was the most embarrassing was his discussion of pornography involving these women with large breasts and engaged in variety of sex with different people or animals. >> did you have cocktails? >> i did not have cocktail. >> anything alcoholic? >> i don't recall having anything alcoholic. >> and what was that incident again? >> the incident with regard to the coke can spelled out in the statement. >> describe it once again for me, please. how could you allow this reprehensible conduct to go on in the headquarters withou

so far the judiciary committee , is failing that test. revealing her name without her will, sympathizing withou -- with her perpetrator, and the senators who did this should be ashamed. i would like to echo the comments of previous speakers, that the senators who protected her confidentiality were doing the right thing. that is what victims deserve. [applause] vitriol, as we all know has been louder and even , more toxic. she lives in fear for herself and her children. these attacks must stop now. they send a message to every victim of sexual violence that your pain does not matter, you do not deserve justice, and that fair treatment is out of your reach. to the men controlling this process, this is your test as well. do you respect women or don't you? and, if you do as you say, you need to show it with your actions, now, when it matters. not in the moment when it is easy, but in the moments when it is hard. no fair investigation begins with attacking or discrediting a survivor. professor ford is not on trial. professor ford did nothing w

while that deadline kept moving, chuck grassly's judiciary committee staff showed once again just how biased and unprofessional they are. on saturday garret ventry was forced to resign from the committee staff when nbc news asked the committee about, quote, evidence he was fired from a previous political job in part because of a sexual harassment allegation against mim. that was after the republican's chief counsel for confirmations tweeted last week that nothing dr. ford could say about brett kavanaugh could stop him from confirming judge cav nee. he wrote unphased and determined we will confirm judge kavanaugh. a very bad weekend for judge kavanaugh ended late sunday night with the senior democrat on the judiciary committee diane feinstein tweeting thursday's hearing should be canceled in light of a disturbing new allegation of sexual misconduct against brett kavanaugh. the fbi must investigate all allegations. the new allegations senator feinstein was referring to was reported in new yorker. when she and brett kavanaugh were freshman at yale she remembers kavanaugh exposed himself

ford has said she's willing to testify before the judiciary committee. does anyone believe it is better for staff to talk to her on the phone, republican staff only -- because no democratic staff will participate in this biased, far-fetched process? does anyone think it's not better for her to come testify? then why can't see? chairman grassley should provide the american people the forum to hear her out. i believe she's credible. a lot of my republican friends don't. what are they afraid of? are they afraid that she might be very persuasive? well, if she is, it is a whole different ballgame, isn't it? so chairman grassley should and must provide the american people the forum to hear her out and decide for themselves whether her testimony reflects on judge kavanaugh's character and fitness for the supreme court. of course he can have the chance to testify again, too, and both of them have said they would. so why, in the good lord's name, why wouldn't we do that? why? there's no reason. no reason. there is no requirement, rule, or precedent that says the

>> well, the senate judiciary committee members that i have spoken to say let that happen. but, it should not unduly delay the vote on judge kavanaugh who has given 24 or 32 hours of testimony by him or by others. and also, there were 1300 written questions. this never came up. those private phone calls. the private meetings. judge kavanaugh has met with 65 u.s. senators. we all know there were some who couldn't find the time to do their jobs to advise and consent the president of the united states on his supreme court pick. i started this segment out by saying she should testify under oath. the senate jewish area committee looks like they are headed that way. judge kavanaugh, who has categorically denied these allegations, will also have an opportunity to address them under oath. and let that be part of what everybody considers before they cast a vote. and let's not fool ourselves. remember, folks, that long before this happened, there were democrats who said they would not vote for judge kavanaugh and they wouldn't vote for anybody that president trump nominated to the su

joining us now is senator chris coons, a member of the judiciary committee. for being here. i know this is an incredibly busy and intense time. >> thank you, rachel. good to be on with you again. i'm struck as we are preparing for tomorrow's hearing, that there are even more accusations against judge kavanaugh that have come out today. so we've got dr. ford, who will be testifying tomorrow. but we've got deborah ramirez and julie swetnick who have also offered to be interviewed by the committee or the fbi, or both. and i think it's more urgent than ever, given this latest accusation that there be a full fbi investigation before we come to any sort of a final vote on judge kavanaugh. >> as new allegations have come forward, and, again, nbc news tonight is reporting on a letter that was received through senator corey gardner's office, which makes another anonymous l allegation against judge kavanaugh that dates to 1998. as these allegations f s come forward, they all have different levels of corroboration, if any, any sign that the white house or the republican

the senate judiciary committee cannot ask the fbi to reopen the investigation, the president has said the fbi doesn't want to, and it is not what they do, but in fact the background investigation if the white house asks them to open it up, they can. >> of course they can do it, and of course the chairman of the senate judiciary committee could ask them to. anita hill, republican president, republican chief counsel, they said wait a minute, those allegations came up, step back, and they interviewed a large number of people. i was one of those who believed anita hill, but at least you had all of the evidence before you. here they're rushing to judgment, almost like they're trying to hide something, step back, take a deep breath, let the professionals with no partisan interest in this either way, let them talk to the various witnesses and get us some answers. >> let's talk about the function of the senate judiciary committee. you're saying let the professionals handle this because the fbi or law enforcement bodies have investigative experience to get to things that the senate judiciary c

we are expecting the judiciary committee to hold their planned hearing tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. eastern. republicans are sticking with their plan that they will not ask any questions of the two witnesses who are scheduled for that hearing. brett kavanaugh and christine blasey ford. republican senators have instead hired a prosecutor from arizona to fly in and ask their questions instead, which i imagine will be awkward and it will at least be unbalanced. the format of the questioning is that each senator on the committee gets five minutes to ask questions with no second round, no follow-ups. but we do think that all of the republican questions will be asked by the same person, who is not a republican senator. while all the democratic senators ask their questions. in addition to the nbc reporter who is going to be here in a moment on this latest allegation tonight, we're also going to be speaking with one of the senators who is on the judiciary committee tonight coming up in just a moment. so we'll be talking about what's expected tomorrow. the developments in this story have bee