Skip to main content

tv   Afternoon Live  BBC News  September 27, 2018 2:00pm-5:01pm BST

2:00 pm
‘ more will keep you updated. plenty more on the website. hello, you're watching afternoon live. i'm ben brown. today at 2. dramatic evidence at the grenfell inquiry — the commissioner of the london fire brigade says she feared some of her firefighters wouldn't come out alive. we'd never experienced an event like that. we'd never seen such a significant failure of a building. the eu's chief brexit negotiator, michel barnier is meeting the labour is meeting the labour leader, jeremy corbyn, in brussels. ambulances in england face missing response targets if the service fails to make changes to the way patients are treated. and coming up on afternoon live: helen willetts has all the weather — helen it has been a bit chilly by morning, but the afternoons have been wonderfully warm. we will need
2:01 pm
another layer in the coming days as temperatures are about to dip away once again. more later. thank you, helen. also in half an hour we'll be crossing to washington for a special programme as senators prepare to hear crucial testimony from president trump's nominee for the supreme court, brett kavanaugh. they'll also hearfrom one of the women accusing him of sexual misconduct. hello. this is afternoon live with me, ben brown. the head of the london fire brigade has said the grenfell tower fire was unprecedented, and "like a scene from a disaster movie". dany cotton has been giving her dramatic testimony to the inquiry in to the disaster this morning. she said it could not have been extinguished even if crews had had specific training in blazes
2:02 pm
involving cladding — and said she feared some of the firefighters going into the building would not survive. our correspondent sophie long reports. this is the first appearance of dany cotton at the inquiry into the fire that claimed the lives of 72 people. as commissioner of the london fire brigade, she was ultimately responsible for the operation to bring the blaze under control. in a written statement, she said... today she told the inquiry there were many aspects of the fire that were unprecedented. complete failure of the building, the ability of the fire to travel across the external face of the building, through the building, reach all the compartments, to travel across central
2:03 pm
communal parts and areas, for the fire to spread as rapidly as it did, for it to involve as many people... i could go on forever. what happened that night that building would have been deemed to have been a completely unrealistic scenario that would never happen. the inquiry had previously heard that london fire brigade training had been inadequate. dany cotton said it was unfair to expect firefighters to be trained for a scenario that they believed would never happen. we learn from every operational incident but in the same manner i wouldn't develop a training package for a space shuttle to land on the shard, that is an instance of that scale so i wouldn't expect to be developing a response to something that simply shouldn't happen. dany cotton also faced questions about the so—called stay put policy, where residents were told to stay in their flats if they weren't directly affected by flames, smoke or heat. she told the inquiry that was the right advice at the time. the buildings were designed for the fire to stay within the compartments
2:04 pm
of origin for 60 minutes and for the vast majority of those, they do that. therefore on balance it is safer to remain in your flat and not open doors and become compromised. if the building behaves correctly and it does not go beyond the compartment of origin, that is the safest option. many of those who survived spoke of life—saving acts of heroism that night, others say lessons must be learned. if you want to hear more about the grenfell tower inquiry, eddie mair presents a daily podcast from the hearing, looking in detail at each day's evidence. you can download it from the bbc iplayer radio app or your podcast provider. our correspondent lisa hampele is at the inquiry in central london. yes, we've been hearing this morning
2:05 pm
from ms cotton, the leader of the london fire brigade. she was 18 when she first became a firefighter, and it was six months into herjob as commissioner when she got that call at two minutes past two on june 1a, the day of the grenfell fire, g said it was from an operator who is at the fire brigade who was normally unflappable, and there was nothing about it. when she approached the fire, she was completely horrified. she said it was like something out of the film towering inferno, a mix of the film towering inferno, a mix of that of the trainee film she had seen about a high—rise flat where people had a job of the building to escape, and she says she has counselling now, that she has memory losses and that she still suffers from it, she can't look at images of
2:06 pm
the fire. and she said that she still couldn't fall apart, she has to do herjob as the head of the fire brigade. she came under intense questioning from the qc, from the inquiry, who was asking her about the two important things we have been hearing about over these last ten weeks when the fire brigade has been the main issue here, and that is about the stay put policy and the training fat high—rises. she said she had no training for high—rise buildings which had a facade cladding, and she said that if there had in fact been training, that the fire would still have been just as bad, and that they wouldn't have been able to put it out. she was questioned about the training, and she said that she hadn't read a document, so the inquiry has seen several documents suggesting the risk of cladding was known about,
2:07 pm
and had been considered as part of the national guidelines for fire services, and operation guidance published in debris 2014 stated that training for high—rise instances must include, and i quote, the development of knowledge, skills and understanding for firefighters and the impact of fire on a building's construction, layout, content and occu pa nt construction, layout, content and occupant behaviour. da ny construction, layout, content and occupant behaviour. dany cotton said she hadn't read this before the fire, and the london fire brigade‘s own procedures enquire require that the buildings are inspected, she was not given specific training, but she says that wouldn't have made a difference. lisa, thank you very much indeed, lisa hampele, our correspondent at the grenfell inquiry. us senators are preparing to question president trump's nominee for the supreme court, brett kavanaugh, and one of the women who's accused him of sexual misconduct. professor christine blasey ford
2:08 pm
will appear before the panel this afternoon, separately from judge kavanaugh, who has strenuously denied all accusations. justices on the us‘s highest court are nominated by the president and hold the position for life. 0ur washington correspondent chris buckler reports. a nominee to sit on america's highest court will walk into a senate room later as the accused, and brett kavanaugh's testimony will be weighed against one of his accusers. in her opening statement to the judiciary committee, christine blasey ford will say she remembers a teenage brett kavanaugh drunkenly groping her, trying to remove her clothes and believing he was going to rape her. all of which he denies. despite this and other accusations,
2:09 pm
donald trump is standing by the man he wants as his next supreme court justice. they know it's a big fat con job. but the president says he will listen to what dr blasey ford has to say. the republican senators have delayed this for weeks now. they're giving the women a major chance to speak. now, it's possible i'll hear that and i'll say, "hey, i'm changing my mind." that is possible. we want to give them a chance to speak. another woman, deborah ramirez, claims brett kavanaugh exposed himself to her at a college party. and a third accuser, julie swetnick, says as a high school student she saw him press up against girls
2:10 pm
and try to expose their body parts. judge kavanaugh, what is your response to the allegations? she also claimsjudge kavanaugh was present at a party when she was gang raped, although there's no suggestion that he was involved. he's called the accusations ridiculous and from the twilight zone. we have had accusation after accusation and accusation. very few of them, if any, are corroborated. our lawyers, if we can make the contact, get on it right away. this hearing is not a trial, but with america watching, president trump's choice to become a supreme courtjustice knows is having to subject himself to the court of public opinion. chris buckler, bbc news, washington. 0ur washington correspondent gary 0'donoghue told us what we can expect from the hearing this afternoon.
2:11 pm
i think probably more scrutinised than any other senate judiciary committee in living memory, this is a huge theatrical moment, a moment for congress, for the white house, for congress, for the white house, for the country, and a real test of credibility, if you like. it will come down to in effect who is more believable, christine blasey ford and her allegations against brett kavanaugh and his denials. we know the details, so the focus will be on how they come across, how they make their case, how they respond to questioning at cross—examination, and to that spotlight, that hugely intense spotlight that this will present. the republicans are determined if they can to get their nominee through. democrats absolutely determined to stop it. but this is much more than about congress, much more than about the supreme court, much more about a moment in time, it is personalfor those in the room, politicalfor those in the room, politicalfor
2:12 pm
those in the room, politicalfor those in congress, but also cultural for this country in the wake of the #metoo movement. and you can watch the senate hearing this afternoon on the bbc news channel with special coverage starting shortly at 2.30pm. bbc news has learned that an nhs trust at the centre of growing concerns about its maternity services has been asked to hand over hundreds of records to independent inspectors. the shrewsbury and telford nhs trust will have to provide details as part of an ongoing review looking at allegations of poor care stretching back nearly two decades. 0ur social affairs correspondent michael buchanan has the details. we know that more than a hundred families have already come forward saying they were failed by maternity services at this trust. more than 100 families are coming forward saying their babies died or suffered significant harm or in a handful of cases that the women, the mothers
2:13 pm
themselves, were let down. but so far, that figure has been made up of people coming forward and saying can you look into my case, the expansion of the review allows the team to look at hundreds of records between 1998 and 2017, stillbirths, maternal deaths, neonatal deaths, incidents of significant harm, and that review tea m of significant harm, and that review team will then determine what steps to ta ke team will then determine what steps to take next. the health and social secretary, matt hancock, has told us that it secretary, matt hancock, has told us thatitis secretary, matt hancock, has told us that it is important to review gets to the truth of what has happened. it is vital, in cases like this and in this specific case, that we get to the bottom of what happened, that we look into all potential cases, and the investigation that has been set up can range as wide as it needs to to make sure that we get to the bottom of what happened, that families can find out what happened, and then that we can learn the lessons from it. within the next few minutes, there
2:14 pm
will be a board meeting here at the trust, at which maternity services will be discussed, notjust what happened in the past but problems at the services at the moment. the trust are saying they will cooperate fully with the review, and that the maternity services are safe. michael buchanan. jeremy corbyn is meeting the eu's chief brexit negotiator michel barnier in brussels today. it comes after his warning that a no—deal brexit would be a "national disaster". the labour leader is travelling to brussels alongside shadow brexit secretary sir keir starmer for the talks. let's speak to our brussels reporter adam fleming. adam, how important is this meeting between mr barnier and mr corbyn, do you think? forjeremy corbyn it is quite important, because it is an opportunity for him to explain to michel barnier labour's newly clarified brexit position after
2:15 pm
their conference. for the eu side, it is another opportunity to just get a sense of the lie of the land politically. eu officials know there isa politically. eu officials know there is a real chance that the only way it will get through is potentially with votes from labour, so they want to know what is going on there. eu officials say this is just another example of michel barnier‘s door being opened to whoever wants to knock on it. he has seen nigel farage, nicola sturgeon, so this is a chat with an interesting person as opposed to any part of the brexit negotiations. and i detected a slight bit of awkwardness on the eu side when you ask them about the timing of this. they say it is a coincidence, and it is happening because jeremy corbyn was coincidence, and it is happening becausejeremy corbyn was here for another event in brussels anyway. this shouldn't be seen as some kind of strategy in the middle of the prime minister's strategy being criticised in salzburg last week,
2:16 pm
and her party conference starting in birmingham at the weekend. in net in the wake of salzburg and they that many thought that was,. if you look at both sides positions, nothing much has changed. the eu is still saying to the uk, if these are your red lines, then you either have to have a canada free trade deal, which means you will have friction at your borders, and potentially a hard borders, and potentially a hard border between northern ireland and ireland, or you need to change your red lines and go do something is a much closer relationship like norway's, and then you get theresa may saying, we are sticking with a red lines, so i'm not clear exactly what could happen in the next couple of weeks, and then we've got another big milestone on the 17th of 0ctober, which is the next summit of eu leaders. when you talk to team barnier, they say that the two
2:17 pm
things you could do is to start work drafting this political declaration which will be signed by all 28 leaders. and maybe do a bit of tinkering with the backstop that is the back—up plan for preventing a ha rd the back—up plan for preventing a hard border on the island of ireland. either a lot is going to happen, or nothing is going to happen. good prediction! adam fleming, thank you very much indeed. you are watching afternoon live. the latest headlines: london fire brigade chief da ny cotton tells the grenfell inquiry she tried to comfort her firefighters before they entered the blaze, fearing they might not return. 0ne one of the women who has accused president trump's supreme nominee brett cannon of of assaulting her is preparing to give evidence this afternoon. a russian man accused of the salisbury poisoning is a military officer who received an honourfrom vladimir putin, an investigative website says.
2:18 pm
we will stay with that story. russia has rejected claims by an investigative journalism team, that one of the prime suspects in the salisbury nerve agent attack is a highly decorated russian special forces colonel. the group bellingcat says the man using the name ruslan boshirov is really anatoly chepiga — and that he was given the kremlin‘s highest bravery award in 2014. 0ur moscow correspondent sarah rainsford has been analyzing this is of course russia's traditional response to accusations from the west, and it is what russia has said all along in the specific case of the salisbury poisoning, to deny any russian state involvement. the only real statement we have had on this is coming from the foreign ministry spokesman, maria zaha rather, who put out a statement on her page overnight saying that the accusations and latest claims were
2:19 pm
false, and all part of an information campaign against russia. there has been some comment on social media mocking that official denial, but there has also been plenty of comment, too, supporting russia's position and mocking the evidence that perhaps the main suspect is a military intelligence officer from the gru here suspect is a military intelligence officerfrom the gru here in russia, but what is but what interesting officerfrom the gru here in russia, but what interesting is that russian television are not even reporting the accusation or the denial. that could be because the kremlin is still awaiting an weighing its response. two weeks ago president putin himself came directly and said that these two suspects were civilians, not intelligence officers, and that there was nothing special, nothing criminal about them. sarah rainsford, our moscow correspondent. the number of new house builds started in england in the year tojune 2018 is down by 3% compared to the year before. but the number of
2:20 pm
completions was up by 5%. these are the latest figures from the minstry of housing. 0verall new builds are still 21% below where they were prior to the financial crisis. to explain all this i'm joined by our economics editor, kamal ahmed. a bit ofa a bit of a mixed bag of figures, but we know house—building is such a politically sensitive issue, it is very important that we understand that you what is going on. absolutely, said david cameron and theresa may both made big pledges for the governments to build more houses, theresa may said a million new houses by 2020, and these figures reveal how difficult that is. it sounds quite confusing, so the number of houses that are being completed, ie people can move into them, has grown slightly. there was little increasing the amount of house—building to three years ago, so that pipeline is pushing the house completions up a little bit. but the number of new build is the issue, that is the number of new
2:21 pm
sta rts issue, that is the number of new starts for housing, that has fallen in the three months of the last quarter, and the three months before that as well, and that must cause some concern. because the number of new build is being built by private housing and by housing associations have both fallen. now, the government says it has put in place a lot of policies to support house—building. theresa may announced the new money for housing associations last week, which needs to go into the system. but there are two issues connected to house—building, which is why it is a difficult. planning can be very difficult, and the number of houses being built by the private sector, which are affordable, is also a big issue. the average price, the average income that you need to be a first—time buyer in england is over £50,000 a year. double the average salary. so it just £50,000 a year. double the average salary. so itjust shows how difficult it is a first—time buyers to get on the housing ladder. and those constraints as you outline, when we talk about the government's
2:22 pm
ambitious targets, a million homes, how achievable is that kind of target? it sounds good rhetoric, but is it achievable? it shows how hard it is, and not all the levers are in the government's hands. they have allowed easier conversions from old office blocks into flats, and so on. that has improved the housing supply to an extent. but not everything is in their gift. this is a big, private market. we are still nowhere near the numbers that we were building in the post—war era when we had a huge number of council houses as well as private houses, and even before the financial crisis, we were building more than we are building now, as you say, 21% more houses we re now, as you say, 21% more houses were being built before the financial crisis, that is just the economy. in the end, building is about confidence, about people buying houses, about people feeling wealthy, and you know how bad incomes have been for many millions of people, and frankly there are not
2:23 pm
enough houses to fulfil the need. we can build more and more houses, but they do need to be affordable for many more people. , thank you grow much indeed. you are watching bbc news. a singer well known for his welsh verse has had a letter written to hsbc bank rejected — because it was "in a foreign language". poet and songwriter geraint lovgreen has complained to the welsh language commissioner after his bank told him to resend his message, written in welsh, in english. hsbc has apologised and says it will offer better training to staff. sian lloyd reports. when geraint lovgreen wrote in his bank to let them know he moved house, the reply came as a shock. they had sent me a message saying
2:24 pm
that this was written in a foreign language, and i think it reflects very badly that welsh can be called a foreign language in wales. i said i will be referring this to the welsh commissioner, and in the meantime i would like an apology and i would like my original message to have an appropriate reply. hsbc have apologised, claiming that mr lovgreen's e—mail had not been identified as being in welsh, so the welsh language team hadn't dealt with the issue. they promised improved training to prevent a similar matter arising in the future. the welsh language commissioner said it was disappointing to still see examples ofa disappointing to still see examples of a lack of understanding and provision by some banks for welsh language customers. she will be meeting senior banking managers in the near future to discuss these latest complaints. sian lloyd, bbc news. the leaders of some of the uk's largest universities have written to the government calling for a ban on commercial essay—writing services in britain. they say the firms, known as essay mills, damage the credibility
2:25 pm
of higher education. the government says it wants universities to do more to tackle the problem. the first moving robots to be deployed on an asteroid have started sending back pictures from its surface. last weekend the two rovers, each about the size of a frying pan, tumbled out of a japanese spacecraft and landed on the surface of ryugu, a half a mile wide asteroid, orbiting near earth. the mission hopes to find clues about the start of the solar system. john cunliffe, the writer and creator of the much—loved children's animation postman pat, has died at the age of 85. # postman pat and his black and white cat... he lived in the lake district for several years, and the picturesque villages and valleys he was familiar with inspired pat's home of greendale. john cunliffe went on to create
2:26 pm
rosie and jim in the 1990s. time for a look at the weather. helen willetts is here with us. let's talk first of all about the latest typhoon in the far east, helen. yes, a massive one. you can see it here on the picture, we had typhoon mangkhut last week, but this one is going to brush close by to taiwan, and we think it is going to head towards japan, it is already heading that way, and it is giving a hundred millimetres of rain in the likes of honshu. there is more of this to come, so it is a really nasty beast, quite nasty, and it is heading its way, very slow—moving and quite powerful, and it is notjust going to affect japan, but also potentially into parts of korea as
2:27 pm
well. and we were talking about a medicaine, what is that? it isa medicaine, what is that? it is a smaller one that forms over the warmer water, the waters are quite warm at the moment, so you have the convection setting up, the spin of the earth and another low pressure which will give some really nasty conditions, severe gales, some uncertainty as to where it is going, but perhaps moving away from cicely across to the greek islands, it could cause a lot of flash flooding and wind as well. here it is quite quiet, iam and wind as well. here it is quite quiet, i am glad to say. we have got the difference in temperature being the difference in temperature being the most interesting part of our weather this week, and you get that in autumn, the diurnal range in temperature. not where we have the cloud, but exeter drops to 1 degrees last night, so very close to freezing, and it is leaping up now in the sunshine, plenty of that around, and the mist and fog at this
2:28 pm
time of year clears mid—morning, leaving an abundance of sunshine. but our cloud in the north has been around for the last couple of days, giving more rain. it is starting to head south, a weakening feature, but it will give a significant dip in our temperatures, and we will be noticing that more in the south where we have had these lovely warm days. we have certainly needed that overnight. 0ur band of cloud with its rain will tend to peter out, and behind it is already freshening up, but to the size of it is where we have that warmth at the moment, and temperatures are in the low 20s at the moment. recently we have seen that frosty start in the south, this will arrest the fall in temperature, this cloud, but it is dropping down to2 this cloud, but it is dropping down to 2 degrees in the north, a real shock to the system after the recent warmth, a touch of ground frost
2:29 pm
quite widely and probably a dismal start to the day across the southern parts of the country compared to recent mornings, but that will skip away quite quickly on this brisk wind coming down from the north, so it will feel cooler even with more sunshine across scotland and northern ireland tomorrow, and the sunshine will come out further south quickly as well, but with the key north—easterly wind and temperatures about 7 degrees down on today, you will need your jacket about 7 degrees down on today, you will need yourjacket rather than just your t—shirt. another chilly night friday night and into saturday as temperatures quite widely fall to within frost levels in the countryside. but of course that does promise a fine start to the weekend, with the frosty night you get the beautiful starts to the day, a little more mist and fog around saturday morning, and the difference for the weekend is more cloud and rain coming into the north on saturday, but a decent day, sunday probably a little more cloud coming south and a few more showers, but again it doesn't look too bad at all. i will have more later. helen, thank you very much indeed. now on bbc news, a special programme
2:30 pm
into donald trump's special nominee brett kavanaugh. i m katty kay live on capitol hill — where a woman who accuses president trump s pick welcome to this special programme. he is the man who has been accused of sexual abuse for an incident 36 yea rs of sexual abuse for an incident 36 years ago. christine blasey ford says he pinned her down on a bed, tried to stop her and ground himself against her. she described it as a
2:31 pm
attempted rain. this hearing is likely to be extremely emotional and political and comes against a backdrop of the me too movement. we do know not what happened between those two people. he categorically denied this incident. there are other allegedly incidents that have surfaced in the last few days and those two are likely to play into those two are likely to play into those hearings. people who are both supporting brett kava naugh those hearings. people who are both supporting brett kavanaugh and opposed to brett kavanaugh have come into the building to listen to these hearings. the previous round of hearings. the previous round of hearings for brett kavanaugh where contentious. they were disrupted by protesters. i do understand that christine blasey ford, the professor from california who is accusing brett kava naugh has
2:32 pm
from california who is accusing brett kavanaugh has now arrived. they will be questioned by ken democrat on thejudiciary committee. there are 11 republicans on the judiciary committee. they are all men and the republicans have chosen, instead of doing the questioning themselves, to bring in and outside prosecutor. she is an expert in sexual abuse cases. she has flown in from arizona. we will hear from ken democrat, from rachel mitchell, the prosecutor doing my prosecutor and from christine blasey ford herself and brett kavanaugh himself. he has categorically denied this but the case has come more, located by other allegations against him servicing. he has denied those as well. yesterday president trump speaking in new york referred to the ear rings and said for the moment he is
2:33 pm
standing by his supreme court nominee but approaching them with an open mind. the republican senators have delayed this for weeks now. they are giving the women ate major chance to speak. it is possible, i will hear that. i am changing my mind, that is possible. we want to give them a chance to speak. president trump referring to those hearings yesterday. we will speak to a series of guest in the course of this half hour before the hearing. some are supporters and some are more sceptical. let's start with one christie rate —— ron christie. you area christie rate —— ron christie. you are a supporter of his. how concerned iq going into these hearings that this is going to be a political hearing and we are not actually going to get very much closer to the truth of what happened, if anything at all,
2:34 pm
between brett kava naugh happened, if anything at all, between brett kavanaugh and christine blasey ford. this of course is a political hearing. this is not a court of law. it is a opportunity to exercise their advice. we are going to find senators questioning whether or not an alleged incident took place 36 yea rs an alleged incident took place 36 years ago. there is a presumed guilt by having our ideal media. can christine blasey ford put forward credible information that will help the senate make a decision. you have known brett kava naugh the senate make a decision. you have known brett kavanaugh forjazz. you have worked with him. it does not ring true for you. it doesn't. so many people are saying, we need another background check, another opportunity to look into his record. it goes beyond top secret. the question here is if these alleged incident had taken place, it would have come up. thejudge, now that i
2:35 pm
have come up. thejudge, now that i have no, it is not consistent with his behaviour and his integrity of the man that i know. we are seeing pictures of the judiciary the man that i know. we are seeing pictures of thejudiciary committee group where you can see the people are starting to gather for these hearings. as i said, there are ten democrat and 11 republicans on the committee. the boom is likely to be packed with supporters and opponents from both sides in this case. that issue of the fbi investigation, if brett kava naugh is issue of the fbi investigation, if brett kavanaugh is innocent as you say he is, why not go... reopen the background check with these allegations in mind. wouldn't it be better for allegations in mind. wouldn't it be betterfor him to allegations in mind. wouldn't it be better for him to be confirmed as a supreme courtjudge better for him to be confirmed as a supreme court judge having better for him to be confirmed as a supreme courtjudge having had his name cleared ? supreme courtjudge having had his name cleared? if he doesn't he will come in to supreme court with this hanging over him. it is going to be hanging over him. it is going to be hanging over him regardless of what happens. there is a constitutional
2:36 pm
issue. you are asking the executive branch of the government to investigate a congressional role. the advice and consent of the senate. they senate have investigators. it is a case of looking at the alleged criminal incident that took place at a state level so the notion that the fbi is going to be looking at something that allegedly took place in maryland, i don't think helps anybody in this case. maryland, i don't think helps anybody in this caselj maryland, i don't think helps anybody in this case. i want to play this little interview with one of the democratic members of the judiciary committee who will be taking part in those hearings. he spoke a short time ago to my colleague. i believe christine blasey ford because she has nothing to gain and everything to lose. she has named witnesses. she has asked foran
2:37 pm
has named witnesses. she has asked for an fbi investigation. that is a way to uncover the facts and with trained, professional investigators. ifjudge trained, professional investigators. if judge cavanaugh wanted trained, professional investigators. ifjudge cavanaugh wanted to clear his name he would demand an fbi investigation. i spoke to himjust after that and ask them what line of questioning he is going to take in those hearings and he told me he will raise issues around what better kavanaugh will raise issues around what better kava naugh has will raise issues around what better kavanaugh has said himself about his behaviour during his teenage years. brett kava naugh gave behaviour during his teenage years. brett kavanaugh gave an interview earlier this week with fox news in which he said he had spent his time doing service, he didn't think until he was 18, he didn't go to parties like this, he focused on his sports, surveys and studies. several friends of his arcane art since and said they do remember part is when he was drinking heavily. all of these senators on the democratic side are very carefully weighing their strategies of what kind of questioning they are planning to
2:38 pm
ta ke questioning they are planning to take with brett kavanaugh. let me ask one. ron, there have been the stories that painted a mixed portrait of brett kavanaugh with some friends of his saying they do remember him drinking quite heavily in high school and college years and yet he gave an interview in which he said he didn't do that. is there an issue of character and of his own portrait of character against that of some of the witnesses?” portrait of character against that of some of the witnesses? i have a ha rd of some of the witnesses? i have a hard time believing that someone who is 52 days old, the veracity of whether they had a b are not when they were 17. is this enough to disqualify someone from being on a federal bench. it is the enough to ta ke federal bench. it is the enough to take him out of consideration? i think he has the opportunity to clear his name today and clear up inconsistencies. this is actually what happened. this is why it is important for the senate to hear from him, notjust the accuser, from him to set the record straight. we
2:39 pm
will be speaking to you laterjust before those hearings begin. let's go to my colleague who has also been covering this story. we are starting to see the protest already. protesters are arriving here on capitol hill how contentious will it be? they really are highly charged. there are two people who both say they are telling the truth but it is also a chance to see how congress deals with allegations of sexual misconduct. some 27 years since anita hill came forward and alleged that the now supreme courtjustice clarence thomas had been guilty of sexually harassing her. but those who don't know much about that case, that was part of the confirmation hearings and anita hill was quite blu ntly treated hearings and anita hill was quite bluntly treated appallingly by the all male committee back then who were, if you watch those hearings back, were pretty plainly sexist
2:40 pm
towards her. to counter some of that, the republicans who only have male senators on the committee have hired in rachel mitchell. she is from arizona and an experienced six crimes prosecutor. this isn't a court of law, this is a chance for a survivor who say she is telling the truth in this case to come forward and share her story on the other side, this is a very important supreme court seat. they want to make sure that the brett kavanaugh has a make sure that the brett kavanaugh hasafair make sure that the brett kavanaugh has a fair chance to clear his name. during the course of the whole me too movement, i note you have interviewed several people who have accused even president trump of sexual harassment and sexual abuse. how much is that movement, and you mentioned and anita hill, hanging over these hearings? you
2:41 pm
have had people from the white house saying that one man should not be carrying the weight of the me too movement on his shoulders. carrying the weight of the me too movement on his shouldersm carrying the weight of the me too movement on his shoulders. it is interesting because i wasjust looking up the fact that next week it isa looking up the fact that next week it is a year since the first accusations were published against happy wine stain. know what is saying the accusations made against judge kavanaugh of the same order, but it does remind of the last year that so many people have come forward to accuse people in power of sexual misconduct. earlier this week we saw bill cosby sentence in a similar six case. the wider context here is that this is a chance for women to come forward, but equally on the other side you have people accusing these women, notjust christine blasey ford. we now have
2:42 pm
three other women come forward, but anonymously. they are being accused of being political. people are saying, why didn't they come forward sooner? that is one of the biggest issues when it comes to people coming forward in the me too movement because it can take years, decades for survivors of sexual abuse of sexual misconduct to come forward and chain share their story. lam not forward and chain share their story. i am not passing judgment on whether christine blasey ford is telling the truth because they're about two sites to this story and we will hear more about that, but crucially that is one of the biggest concerns on the republican side. people are saying, why didn't she come forward sooner? but it can take many years for survivors of these incidents to come forward and have the confidence to be believed and that is one of the things that have changed in this me too movement. this wasn't the case several decades ago. thank you
2:43 pm
very much. if you wanted a story or a case that was more compensated politically, socially, in terms of gender divide in the country, it will be very hard to find one. we will be very hard to find one. we will see if this hearing will actually get is closer to the truth of the understanding of and it will get embroiled in this intensely political moment. i enjoyed by amanda palmerfrom political moment. i enjoyed by amanda palmer from politico, political moment. i enjoyed by amanda palmerfrom politico, a new site here in the united states. anna, you have been covering the politics of this. we have talked about how this is an incredibly important move billy mack moment. what is the political peril for the republican party? they understand this will be a massive issue. everyone is paying attention. they are dealing with the fact that so many women voters are are dealing with the fact that so many women voters are turning away from them, away from donald trump. they are all looking at the mid—term
2:44 pm
elections in 40 days. we have 11 republican white males sitting there looking to a woman prosecutor to ask the questions for them. they reserve the questions for them. they reserve the right to interact and ask their own questions. these kind of hearings are often much more about senators to grandstand, make their point and pontificate. it will be interesting to see if they can actually held back. on the democratic side, is there a political peril? a brush tojudgment and accuse him before we know what the facts are? there is a little bit less fear from democrats that they will have a moment that will hurt them in the mid—term election. however, the political theatre is already happening. an actress is sitting in the chamber. they know what they are doing. they are trying to create these moments that will
2:45 pm
create a bible moment. what happens if brett kava naugh create a bible moment. what happens if brett kavanaugh is confirmed, becomes a member of the supreme court in terms of now and the mid—term elections. they do expect this to galvanise democratic voters in support of democratic candidates? certainly democrats are hoping to use this if he is confirmed. even if he is not, they are starting to run attack ads on republicans saying, look, these are the type of people to the republican party stands behind. i also think this is going to be something where republicans are going to have two figure out how they can put him on the court, will it have an lasting application. will they lose an entire generation of women? at the republicans united in supporting him? i think right now everything hinges on this hearing.
2:46 pm
we're been reporting for the last couple of days. it appears that brett kava naugh is couple of days. it appears that brett kavanaugh is going to be confirmed right now. there are some real wild cards. senator susan collins, everybody has been focused on them. a lot of his colleagues don't know where he might land. on them. a lot of his colleagues don't know where he might landm he is confirmed, it is there a chance that if allegations were to continue they could have an impact on his standing as a judge?“ democrats take a majority, they could impeach. that is the only because. 0nce could impeach. that is the only because. once he is confirmed, it is a lifetime appointment. talk to us about... we are focusing on christine blasey ford. there are two other women who put their names to allegations and we hear of one other
2:47 pm
allegations and we hear of one other allegation that is anonymous. he has denied all of them and there are no corroborating witnesses. how much do those other allegations play into what we are going to hear today on capitol hill? this is something that i expect both republicans and democrats to bring up. for democrats, it is a question of is it a pattern of behaviour? republicans will say that there is no way, it is outrageous. an aide was talking to me about... when people come out and there are allegations that people don't put their names to, people wa nt to don't put their names to, people want to get in on the mix a bit. let's ta ke want to get in on the mix a bit. let's take you to those pictures and capital health. it is next to the buildingi capital health. it is next to the building i am standing in. this is thejudiciary building i am standing in. this is the judiciary committee building i am standing in. this is thejudiciary committee hearing room. people are gathering already. christine blasey ford is already in
2:48 pm
the building. brett kavanaugh will not be in that room while christine bra cey ford not be in that room while christine bracey ford is testifying and while she is answering questions. he is going to come later and she has asked that he is not in the room at the same time. senators and staffers will be taking their seats as well as supporters. members of her family will be there and she will be sitting at that table taking questions from senators and from rachel mitchell, the prosecutor hired by the republican side. let's get more in the politics of this because they are extremely important and have a lasting impact on this country. brett kava naugh, and have a lasting impact on this country. brett kavanaugh, if he is confirmed, could be on the supreme court for potentially the next 30 yea rs. court for potentially the next 30 years. he will have an impact on how people vote, what people can do on in their bedrooms, whether abortion stays legal, whether potentially a president will be impeached in this
2:49 pm
country. all of that goes through the supreme court which is why few set on that court is extremely important. there are only nine people on that court. for democrats, for republicans. if he is confirmed it will swing the court potentially into a mark conservative direction. that is why the stakes are so high because the supreme court site so much of what happens in people's daily lives. it is arguably the nine most daily lives. it is arguably the nine m ost m ost daily lives. it is arguably the nine most most unimportant unelected jobs in the world. anthony, this morning a top democrat said to me that the brett kava naugh hearings a top democrat said to me that the brett kavanaugh hearings are an electoral bonanza. not a bonanza the party necessarily once because they do not want brett kavanaugh on the supreme court but they see this as a political win for them. do you think thatis political win for them. do you think that is right? it is difficult to say. right now the winds are blowing
2:50 pm
and the democrats direction. this shakes up the mid—term races which are only 40 days from now. anything that shakes up isn't necessarily a good thing. a poll that came out said 76% of the public said that the supreme court is very important to their vote in 2018. that is more than health care or the economy. that is the first time the economy hasn't been the top most important issue since 2004. people are paying attention to the supreme court and traditionally the people who pay attention at evangelical conservatives and republicans because they are very interested in the abortion issue. 45 years ago the us supreme court legalised abortion nationwide and evangelical conservatives have been working year after year trying to build support to reverse that decision. they feel that brett kava naugh to reverse that decision. they feel that brett kavanaugh could be that this vote on the supreme court
2:51 pm
backward change everything and finally accomplish this decade long dull. my hunch is that brett kavanaugh is not confirmed, you could see a huge galvanising force amongst republican voters to get out in those elections. they are very angry and do think that those allegations are unfair and because they are desperate to hang on to the us senate which is the body which decides who gets to sit on the supreme court. we don't have to go back to far to see what kind of impact it could have on an national election. in 2016. if we look at it, republicans stuck by donald trump through it all, even with all the questions and the explicit pitch by hillary clinton and barrett of armour to try and pull republican voters over. john 188% of the republican vote. that is only a
2:52 pm
slight the crease. donald trump 180%. he actually improve the share of the evangelical vote. you could see that supreme court. the people turning out to vote are ones that wa nted turning out to vote are ones that wanted a conservative on that bench. we started this special programme by playing that little clip of donald trump from last night. i was fascinated to hear the president speaking about brett kavanaugh in that conference because he seemed to be saying, you'd know what? i am open to dropping this guy if these hearings don't go well for him. what did you make of that? like a lot of things at a press conference, donald trump was saying some contradictory things. he said he was going to keep an open mind which is kind of a white house strategy. that she should have her say, that they will
2:53 pm
listen, consider and make up their mind. he also cold all of the accusation is false accusations so he also said he didn't think this was going to amount to anything. 0n one hand, yes, he was saying he had an open mind, on the other hand, the time his own fate to brett kavanaugh ‘s. he talked about the accusations against him and he compared them to the accusations against kavanaugh and he was predisposed to believe someone like him because he believes he isa someone like him because he believes he is a good man. all of those reasons. we had a little bit of doubt and reasons. we had a little bit of doubtand a reasons. we had a little bit of doubt and a little bit of wiggle room, but he was also doubling down as well. thank you very much. let's go back to that picture from the judiciary committee hearing room. rachel mitchell the prosecutor who has been hired from arizona to do the questioning is now in the room. these hearings are getting under
2:54 pm
way. they will be starting soon. a little bit of background on rachel mitchell. she was a prosecutor since 1993 and has become an expert in prosecuting people who are accused of six crimes. she has had successful convictions against catholic priest who have been accused of sexual crimes. she is known to have supported the republican party and donated money to republicans. everyone who knows her says she is extremely fair and empathetic. she will be conducting these questions fairly. rachel mitchell, the prosecutorfor these questions fairly. rachel mitchell, the prosecutor for the republican side. i am joined by a former chief counsel for the judiciary committee. thank you. what did you expect to come out of these hearings? i think we will see doctor ford testify and very clearly about what she witnessed as an eyewitness to her own attack by brett kavanaugh. i think we will see him
2:55 pm
deny it. a denial by a man is a most typical, predictable think you can expect. almost all men deny sexual harassment charges of rain and i think at the end of this we will be faced by a senate that is male dominated deciding whether they are going to believe doctor ford and also there will be criticism about how it has proceeded. key witnesses are not in the broom or been invited and at being excluded from this proceeding. because in two question the hearing. if you were still part of the committee, how would you be advising the democrats to proceed?” think they should make clear that this process is not proceeding ordinarily processes happen in the senate for decades and stop there should be a full fbi investigation to look back and looking to serious allegations that have been made. what could an fbi investigation do that they see it the mac senate
2:56 pm
hearing card? it would include all the relevant witnesses, the full amount of time to question them, about patterns of behaviour. what you will see today are republicans through their proxy limited to five minute questions. that is no way to conduct a investigation and it is certainly not fair. what do you think of the argument that he has gone through six different background checks and he has security clearance at the highest level? if there had been something of this nature, wouldn't those background checks have thrown it up? that is false. i have read hundreds of fbi files and the fact is is that in interviewers yacht employer... it is unlikely to interview your girlfriend or people in your social circle. i don't think that would have come up and i think those investigations were basically building on the earlier one. his previous employers, they never went
2:57 pm
back to look back at these allegations. they didn't talk to his couege allegations. they didn't talk to his college roommates they would have heard a very different story. christine blasey ford is going to be the focus of attention. there are two other allegations, one other is anonymous. how much will democrats focus on the other allegations which he has denied? i think they will likely say that these women need to be heard, that their statements need to be given full weight and they need an opportunity to be heard and they are not being given that opportunity because of its rush to confirm brett kava naugh. opportunity because of its rush to confirm brett kavanaugh. even though there is no limit on the timeframe for consideration by the senate. we note that the senate were willing to wait 400 days without having a hearing. there is no brush. there are only bush is by the republicans.
2:58 pm
despite these very serious charges against him. do you think there is a chance that these hearings will mean that brett kava naugh chance that these hearings will mean that brett kavanaugh is not nominated to the supreme court did you think mines have been made upon the republican and democratic side and that these hearings, but it is a kind of a show? i don't think he will necessarily be confirmed. i think there is a lot in the air about him. i think people have serious misgivings about him. he has a track record of misleading the senate. i think it remains to be seen. we will see what happens next. elections are less than 60 days away and people are very upset i how this is being handled by thejudiciary committee. these are the live pictures that are
2:59 pm
coming into us. members from the senate are starting to gather. staff are starting to gather. republican members will not be doing the direct questioning, as we heard there, they can questioning, as we heard there, they ca n follow questioning, as we heard there, they can follow up with questions they can follow up with questions they can ask for clarification is if they wa nt can ask for clarification is if they want that. you can also see the democratic side, those senators coming in. there are four women are amongst the ten democratic senators. this is a different picture from 1991 when anita hill was questioned. the woman who made sexual harassment allegations againstjustice clarence thomas. he was confirmed and now sits on the supreme court. 17 years later. when anita hill went into that room bought those hearings it was all meant she was questioned by. now there are four women on the democratic side who will be taking pa rt democratic side who will be taking part in the questioning. there is also rachel mitchell who will be there as well. let me bring in run christie. 0ne, if you are brett kavanaugh christie. 0ne, if you are brett kava naugh today, what christie. 0ne, if you are brett
3:00 pm
kavanaugh today, what are you thinking, how are you preparing?” am very thinking, how are you preparing?” am very nervous. he thinking, how are you preparing?” am very nervous. he has been at the white house for several hours this week. they try to throw every conceivable question at him from his past to his present, trying to fill in gaps and work there are inconsistencies in some of the things he may have said, either publicly or in his what you think is his biggest liability today? his biggest liability today? his biggest liability is dr ford from her written testimony, she sounds very credible. there is no contemporaneous witnesses saw word this, but based on what i have read, if she can come out and say many of the things she has written in a credible and straightforward manner, i think it will be he said, she said, and! i think it will be he said, she said, and i think she could be credible. the supreme court
3:01 pm
historically was one of the organisations that managed to survive partisanship in this country. there hasn't done since 2000 and the bush of versus gore, but it is important to the american public that they have a stature and respectability. i concerned that this hearing, the things people have learned about the fact that we are even discussing when he lost his virginity, that this has an impact on his ability when he gets to the supreme court to do hisjob in a way thatis supreme court to do hisjob in a way that is seen as befitting of the status of a supreme courtjustice. his intellect and writing ability, if he makes it to the supreme court, the american public see him as a man of integrity and intellect. we both travelled the country for a bit, the beeb lives by gunter across the country say, what in the world is going on in washington, dc. —— the
3:02 pm
people i have spoken to across the country say, what is going on in washington, dc. this is a political matter, and the question for me, katty, is do american people see this as a process that is destroying our judicial system this as a process that is destroying ourjudicial system or ensuring that we have the best? and however this hearing turns out, that is not good for america. it is not good for justice kavanaugh, for the standing of the supreme court and for the country's ability to feel they can get things done in a way that is put on cooperation. it goes back to what you said a moment ago, for the last 18 years you have had an increasingly polarised approach to politics and the judiciary. we're talking about brett kavanaugh's
3:03 pm
virginity and gang rape. 0nce talking about brett kavanaugh's virginity and gang rape. once the dust settles, no matter how this turns out, i think americans are going to be very introspective and say, we need a timeout, we need to find a better way to move forward and not literally destroy the lives of the people that we put forward for public office. i wish i could feel optimistic that that is what the outcome of this might be, that we had a timeout. ifear we the outcome of this might be, that we had a timeout. i fear we are heading for a period where things become more politicised. thank you very much, let's go back to the committee room, christine blasey ford has now taken her seat, she is taking her seat in thejudiciary committee room and she will be questioned by members of the judiciary committee, we expect these hearings to last for the next few hours, it is quite possible they go on forfour orfive hours, there is no timeframe for the republican chairman of the committee who has said he is calling a committee vote for tomorrow morning, friday morning, here in washington, less than 24 hours away, and it is
3:04 pm
possible that the whole sennett then votes during the course of this weekend. these hearings extremely important to democrats and republicans as we have outlining for the last half an hour. a lot is at sta ke, the last half an hour. a lot is at stake, and of course with any supreme court nomination, and the lasting impact that this could have not just lasting impact that this could have notjust an lasting impact that this could have not just an brett lasting impact that this could have notjust an brett kavanaugh if he is confirmed, but on how americans see the supreme court, the kinds of things that have been surfaced in the last few days, who are likely to have an impact on the stature of the supreme court as well. we will be watching to see how christine blasey ford answers the questions, her statement is very credible, we have heard from republicans over the last few days and the president himself that one approach that republicans might be suggesting is that these things did indeed happen to christine blasey ford, but it is a case of mistaken identity, she just got the wrong guy. things have changed since 1991 when anita hill sat in that seat and answered questions before thejudiciary
3:05 pm
committee. there are no women on the judiciary committee who will be asking questions. there has been only #metoo movement which has changed the culture of this country. here is committee chairman chuck g rassley here is committee chairman chuck grassley gathering in the hearing. the hearing on the nomination of judge brett kavanaugh on the suitability of serving for the supreme court. we will hear from two witnesses, dr christine blasey ford and judge kavanaugh. thank you to dr ford and judge kavanaugh for accepting the invitation to testify, and also thank them for volunteering to testify before we even invited. both dr ford and judge kavanaugh have been through a terrible couple of weeks. they and their families
3:06 pm
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 apologise to you both for the way you've been treated, and i intend hopefully for today's hearing to be safe, co mforta ble today's hearing to be safe, comfortable and dignified for both of our witnesses. i hope my collea g u es of our witnesses. i hope my colleagues willjoin me in this effort of a show of civility. with that said, i lament how this hearing has come about. 0njuly the night, 2018, the president announced judge kavanaugh's nomination to serve on
3:07 pm
the supreme court. judge kavanaugh has served on the most important appellate court for ten 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 20 17. as pa rt of nine months ago, in november 20 17. as part ofjudge kavanaugh's nomination to the supreme court, the fbi conducted its sixth fulfil background ofjudge kavanaugh since 1993, 25 years ago. nowhere in any of these six reports which committee investigators have reviewed on a bipartisan basis was there a whiff of any issue, any issue at all related in any way to inappropriate
3:08 pm
sexual behaviour. dr ford first rate her allegations in a secret letter to the ranking member nearly two months ago, injuly. this letter was secret from july 30 until september 13 when i first heard about it. the ranking member took no action. the letter was shared with me, collea g u es letter was shared with me, colleagues or staff. these allegations could have been investigated in a way that maintains the confidentiality that dr ford requested. before his hearing, judge kavanaugh met requested. before his hearing, judge kava naugh met privately requested. before his hearing, judge kavanaugh met privately with 65 senators including the ranking member. but the ranking member didn't askjudge kavanaugh about the
3:09 pm
allegations when she met with him privately in august. thejudiciary committee held its four—day hearing from september the 4th of september the 7th, judge kavanaugh testified for more than 32 hours in public, we held a closed session for members to ask sensitive questions on the last evening, which the ranking member did not attend. judge kavanaugh a nswered did not attend. judge kavanaugh answered nearly 1300 written questions submitted by senators after the hearing. more than all prior supreme court nominees. throughout this period, we did not know about the ranking member's secret evidence. then only at the 11th hour on the eve ofjudge kavanaugh's 11th hour on the eve ofjudge kava naugh's confirmation, 11th hour on the eve ofjudge kavanaugh's confirmation, did the ranking member referred the allegations to the fbi, and then, sadly, the allegations were leaked to the press. and that's where dr ford was mistreated. this is a
3:10 pm
shameful way to treat our witness, who insisted on confidentiality and of coursejudge who insisted on confidentiality and of course judge kavanaugh who insisted on confidentiality and of coursejudge kavanaugh thomert who has had to address these allegations in the midst of a media circus. when i received dr ford's letter on september the 30th, my staff and i recognised the seriousness of these allegations and immediately began our committee's investigation consistent with the way the committee has handled such allegations in the past. every step of the way, the democratic side refused to participate in what should have been a bipartisan investigation. as far as i know on all of ourjudgeships in at least the last four years, or three years, thatis the last four years, or three years, that is the way it has been handled. after dr ford's identity became public, my staff contacted all the
3:11 pm
individuals she said attended the 1982 party described in the washington post article. judge kavanaugh washington post article. judge kava naugh immediately submitted washington post article. judge kavanaugh immediately submitted to an interview under penalty of felony for any knowingly false statements. he denied the allegations categorically. democratic staff was invited to participate, and could have asked any questions you may wa nt to have asked any questions you may want to but they declined. which leads me then to wonder, if they are really concerned with going to the truth, why wouldn't you want to talk to the accused? the processing procedure is what the committee a lwa ys procedure is what the committee always does when we receive allegations of wrongdoing. my staff reached out to other individuals allegedly at the party, markjudge, patrick smith, leading kaiser. all three submitted statements to the senate on under penalty of perjury.
3:12 pm
ms kaiser stated she doesn't know judge kavanaugh and doesn't recall ever attending a party with him. my staff made repeated requests to interview dr ford during the past 11 days, even volunteering to fly to california to take her testimony. but her attorneys refused to present her allegations to congress. i nevertheless honoured her request for a public hearing, so dr ford today has the opportunity to prevent her allegations under oath. as you can see, the judiciary her allegations under oath. as you can see, thejudiciary committee was able to conduct thorough investigations into allegations. some of my colleagues consistent with stated desires to destruct kavanaugh's nomination by any means
3:13 pm
necessary pushed for fbi investigations into the allegations. but i have no authority to force the executive branch agency to conduct an investigation into a martyr it considers to be closed. moreover, once the allegations became public, it was easy to identify all the alleged witnesses, and conduct our own investigations. contrary to what the public has been led to believe, the public has been led to believe, the fbi doesn't perform any credibility assessments, or verify the truth of any events in these background investigations. iwill quote then chairman joe background investigations. iwill quote then chairmanjoe biden during justice thomas' hearing. this is what he said. the next person who refers to an fbi report as being worth anything obviously doesn't understand anything. the fbi
3:14 pm
explicitly does not in this or any other case reach a conclusion, period. they say he said, she said, they said, period. so when people waive an fbi report before you, understand they do not, they do not, they do not reach conclusions. they do not make recommendations. and senator biden's quote. the fbi provided us with the allegations. now it is up to the senate to assess their credibility. which brings us to this very time. i look forward to afairand to this very time. i look forward to a fair and respectful hearing. that's what we promised dr ford. some of my colleagues have complained about the fact that an expert on this side is investigating sex crimes, and will be questioning
3:15 pm
the witness. i see no basis for complaint other than just playing politics. the testimony we will hear today concerns allegations of sexual assault, very serious allegations. this is an incredibly complex and sensitive subject to discuss, and it's not an easy one to discuss. that is why the senators on this side believe an expert who has deep experience and training and interviewing victims of sexual assault and investigating sexual assault and investigating sexual assault should be asking questions. this will be in stark contrast to the standing in chaos that we saw from the other side during the previous four days in this hearing process. i can think of no one better equipped to question the witnesses than rachel mitchell. ms mitchell is a career prosecutor, civil servant, with decades of
3:16 pm
experience investigating and prosecuting sex crimes. she has dedicated her career to seeking justice for survivors of sex—related felonies. most recently, rachel was a division chief of the special victims division in maricopa county attorney's office. that prosecutes crimes and family violence. but then democratic senator, government janet napolitano, recognised her as the outstanding sexual assault prosecutor of the year. and she has spent years constructing prosecutors, detectives, and child protection workers, on how to properly interview victims of sexual assault and abuse. with her age, i look forward to a fairer, productive hearing. i understand that there are two other public allegations.
3:17 pm
today's hearing was scheduled in close consultation with dr ford's attorneys, and her testimony will be the subject of this hearing. we have been trying to investigate other allegations. at this time, we have not had a cooperation from the attorneys representing other clients. and they have made no attempt to substantiate their claims. my staff has tried to secure testimony, and evidence from attorneys for both deborah ramirez and julie swetnick. my staff made eight requests, yes, eight request, for evidence from attorneys for miss ramirez. and six requests for evidence for attorneys for miss winnick. 0neida —— neither attorney has made their client available for interview. i hope you all understand
3:18 pm
that we have attempted to seek additional information as we do a lot of times when there are holes in what we call the bia reports. additionally, all the witnesses should know by when i say all the ministers i say dr ford and judge kavanaugh, all the ministers i say dr ford and judge kava naugh, all the witnesses ministers i say dr ford and judge kavanaugh, all the witnesses should know that they have the right and senate rule 26.5, to ask that the committee going to closed session with the question requires an answer thatis with the question requires an answer that is a clear invasion of their right to privacy. if either dr ford orjudge kavanaugh feel that senate rule 265 ought to be involved, they should simply say so. sojeff einstein —— senator feinstein. should simply say so. sojeff einstein -- senator feinstein. thank you very much, mr chairperson. yes,
3:19 pm
idid you very much, mr chairperson. yes, i did receive a letter from dr ford. it was conveyed to be brought by a memberof it was conveyed to be brought by a member of congress on an issue. the next day, i called dr ford, we spoke on the phone, she reiterated that she wanted this held confidential, andl she wanted this held confidential, and i held confidential. up to a point where the witness was willing to come forward. and i think as i make my remarks, perhaps you will see why. because how women are treated in the united states, with this kind of concern, is really wanting a lot of reform, and i will get to that for a minute. but in the meantime, good morning, dr ford. thank you for coming forward and being willing to share your story with us. i know this wasn't easy for you, but before you get to your testimony, and the chairman chose not to do this, i think it's important to make sure you're
3:20 pm
properly introduced.” important to make sure you're properly introduced. i was going to introduce her, but if you want to do it, i will gladly do that. but i wa nted it, i will gladly do that. but i wanted to know that i didn't forget, i was going to interview herjust as she was about to speak. thank you. i have to say when i saw your cv and extremely impressed. you have a bachelors degree from the university of north carolina, chapel hill. two masters degrees, one from stanford and one from pepperdine, and a ph.d. from the university of southern california, better known to censor harris and i as usc. you are a professor affiliated with both sta nford professor affiliated with both stanford university and palo alto university. you have published over 65 peer—reviewed articles, and have received numerous awards for your work and research. and as if that we re work and research. and as if that were not enough, you are a wife, a mother of two sons and a constituent from california. so i am very grateful to you for your strength
3:21 pm
and your bravery in coming forward. i know it's hard. but before i turn it over, i want to say something about what is to be discussed today, and where we are as a country. sexual violence is a serious problem, and one that largely goes unseen. in the united states, it is estimated by the centres for disease control one in three women and one in six men will experience some form of sexual violence in their lifetime. according to the rape, abuse and incest national network, 60% of sexual assaults go unreported. in addition, when survivors do report their assaults, it is often years later, due to the trauma they suffered and fearing their stories will not be believed. last week, i received a letter from
3:22 pm
a 60—year—old california constituent who told me that she survived an attempted rape at age 17. she described as being terrified and embarrassed. she never told a soul until much later in life. the assault stayed with her for 43 years. i think it's important to remember these realities as we hear from dr ford about her experience. there's been a great deal of public discussion about the #metoo movement today versus the year of the woman almost 27 years ago. but while young women are standing up and saying, no more, our institutions have not progressed in how they treat women who come forward. too often, women's memories and credibility under assault, in essence they are put on trial. and forced to defend
3:23 pm
themselves. and often re—victimised in the process. 27 years ago, i was walking through an airport when i saw a large group of people gathered around a tv to listen to anita hill tell her story. what i saw was an attractive woman in a blue suit before an all— male judiciary committee speaking of her experience of sexual harassment. she was treated badly, accused of lying, attacked and her credibility put to the test throughout the process. today, dr christine blasey ford has come forward to tell her story of being assaulted and fearing for her life when she was a teenager. initially, as i said, dr ford did not want to make her story public. then within 36 hours of coming
3:24 pm
forward , then within 36 hours of coming forward, republicans scheduled a hearing without talking to her or even inviting her to testify. she was told she had to show up or the committee would move forward with a vote. it took a public outcry from the majority, excuse me for the majority to back down and give her even a few days to come before the committee. republicans also scheduled this hearing with dr ford without having her allegations investigated by the fbi. in 1991, anita hill's allegations were reviewed by the fbi. as is the normal process, and squarely within its jurisdiction. normal process, and squarely within itsjurisdiction. however, despite repeated requests, president trump and the republicans have refused to ta ke and the republicans have refused to take this routine step and direct
3:25 pm
the fbi to conduct an impartial investigation. this would clearly be the best way to ensure a fair process to bothjudge kavanaugh the best way to ensure a fair process to both judge kavanaugh and to dr ford. in 1991, the sennett heard from 22 witnesses over three days. today, while rejecting an fbi investigation, republicans are refusing to hear testimony from any other witness come including marked —— markjudge other witness come including marked —— mark judge who other witness come including marked —— markjudge who christine blasey ford says was in the room at the time. republicans have also refused to call anyone who could speak to the evidence that would support or reviewed dr ford's claim, and not
3:26 pm
one witness who could address credibility and character of either ford or kavanagh has been called. what i find most inexcusable is this rush to judgment. the what i find most inexcusable is this rush tojudgment. the unwillingness to take these kinds of allegations at face value, and look at them for what they are, real of character for someone who was asking for a lifetime appointment on the supreme court. in 1991, republicans belittled professor hill's experienced, saying, and i quote, it won't make a bit of difference in the outcome. and the burden of proof was on professor hill. today our republican colleagues are saying this is a hiccup, dr ford is mixed up, and declaring i'll listen to the
3:27 pm
lady, but we are going to bring this toa lady, but we are going to bring this to a close. what's worse, many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have also made it clear that no matter what happens today, the sennett will plough right through and ensure judge kavanaugh will be elevated within a week. in fa ct, will be elevated within a week. in fact, tuesday, the majority went ahead and scheduled a vote on the nomination before we heard one word of testimony regarding allegations of testimony regarding allegations of sexual assault and misconduct by judge kavanaugh. republican leadership even told senators they should plan to be in over this weekend so the nomination can be pushed through without delay. this is despite the fact that in the last few days, two more women have come forward with their own serious allegations of sexual assault involving brett kavanaugh. this past
3:28 pm
sunday, we learned about debbie ramirez, who was a student at yale with brett kavanaugh. she, too, did not want to come forward, but after being approached by reporters, she told her story. she was at a college party where kava nagh told her story. she was at a college party where kavanagh exposed himself to her. she recalls pushing him away and then seeing him laughing and pulling his pants up. then yesterday, julie swetnick came forward to say that she had experiences of being at house parties with brett kavanaugh and mark judge. parties with brett kavanaugh and markjudge. she parties with brett kavanaugh and mark judge. she recounted parties with brett kavanaugh and markjudge. she recounted seeing cavanagh markjudge. she recounted seeing cava nagh behaving, and markjudge. she recounted seeing cavanagh behaving, and i quote, in an aggressive and abusive way towards girls, in an attempt, and i quote, to remove or shift girls' clothing, not taking no for an answer, grabbing girls without their
3:29 pm
consent and targeting particular girls so that they could be taken advantage of. end quote. each of these stories are troubling on their own, and each of these allegations should be investigated by the fbi. all three women have said they would like the fbi to investigate, please do so. all three have said they have other witnesses and evidence to corba -- to other witnesses and evidence to corba —— to corroborate their accounts, and yet republicans continue to blindly push forward. so today we are moving forward with a hearing, and being asked to assess the credibility of brett kavanaugh. he's made several statements about how his focus was on school, basketball, service projects and going to church. he declared that
3:30 pm
he, quote, never drank so much she couldn't remember what happened, and he has always treated women with dignity and respect, end quote. and while he has made these declarations, more and more people have come forward challenging his characterisation of events and behaviours. james roach, his freshman roommates at yale, stated cavanagh was, and i quote again, frequently incohere ntly cavanagh was, and i quote again, frequently incoherently drunk, end quote. and that was when he, quote, became aggressive and belligerent, end quote, when he was drunk. liz switcher, a friend of his from yale, said, andl switcher, a friend of his from yale, said, and i quote, there is no medical way that i could say he was blacked out, but it's not credible for him to say that he has no memory lapses in the night that he drank to excess, end quote. lynn brooks, a college classmate,
3:31 pm
said the picture that brett kavanaugh is trying to paint does not match her memories. he is trying to paint himself as some kind of choir boy. you can't lie your way onto the supreme court. and with that statement out, he has gone too far. it is about the integrity of the institution. ultimately, members and ladies and gentlemen, i really think that is the point. we are here to decide whether to evaluate this nominee to the most prestigious court in our country. it is about the integrity of that institution and the integrity of this institution. the entire country is watching. how we handle these allegations. i hope the majority changes their tactics, opens their
3:32 pm
mind and seriously reflect on why we are here. we are here for one reason— to determine whetherjudge kavanaugh should be elevated to one of the most powerful positions in our country. this is not a trial, it isa our country. this is not a trial, it is a job interview forjudge kavanaugh. it is brett kavanaugh who we want on the most prestigious court on this country? is he the best we can do? thank you. you brought up the unsubstantiated allegations of other people, but we are here for the sole purpose of listening to doctor ford and we will consider other issues at other times. i would like you to rise so i can times. i would like you to rise so i ca n swear times. i would like you to rise so i can swear you. do you swear that the
3:33 pm
testimony you are about to give to this committee will be the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me god? thank you very much. i wa nt to help me god? thank you very much. i want to say first that she has asked for... any time you ask for a break, you get a break. any time there is something that you don't need, just ask us and you can have as much time for your opening statement as you want. and just generally let us know if there are any issues. proceeds please. thank you, senator. ithink after i beat my opening statement i anticipate needing some caffeine if thatis anticipate needing some caffeine if that is available. ok. can you hold the microphone closer to do please?
3:34 pm
can the whole box get a little bit closer? i'll lean forward. is this good? thank u, chairman and members of the committee. my name is christine blasey ford. i am a professor of psychology and a b said psychologist at the stamford university school of medicine. i wa nted university school of medicine. i wanted to tell my educational background because it has already been summarised. i have been married to puzzle ford since 2002 and we have smack children. i am here, not because i want to be. i am terrified. i am because i want to be. i am terrified. iam here because i want to be. i am terrified. i am here because i believe it is my civic duty to tell you what happened to me while brett kavanaugh were in high school. i have described the events publicly before. i summarise them in my
3:35 pm
letter to... i understand the importance of you hearing from me directly about what happened to me and the impact it has had on my life and the impact it has had on my life and my family. i grew up in the suburbs of washington, dc. i attended school from 1978 to 19 84. it is an all girl school that opened in1901. during my it is an all girl school that opened in 1901. during my time goals frequently met and became friendly with boys from other schools in the area. our country clubs and kids and families socialise as well. this is how i met brett kavanaugh, the boys who sexually assaulted me. during my
3:36 pm
freshman and sophomore at school yea rs freshman and sophomore at school years when i was 14 and 15 years old, my group of friends intersected with brett and his friends for a short period of time. i had been friendly with a classmate of brett's and it was through that connection that i attended a number of parties that i attended a number of parties that brett also attended. we did not know each other well but i knew him and he knew me. in the summer of 1982, like most summers, i spent most every day at the columbia country club in chevy chase swimming and taxing diving. 0ne country club in chevy chase swimming and taxing diving. one evening that summer, after a day of diving at the club, i attended a small gathering ata club, i attended a small gathering at a house in the area. there were four boys i remember being specifically at the house. brett kavanaugh, markjudge, a boy named pj kavanaugh, markjudge, a boy named pj and one other boy whose name i
3:37 pm
cannot recall. i also remember my friend leland attending. i do not remember all of the details of how that gathering came together but like many that summer there was almost surely a spare of the moment gathering. i truly wish i could be more helpful with more detailed a nswe rs more helpful with more detailed a nswers to more helpful with more detailed answers to all of the questions that have and will be asked about how i got to the party and where it took place and so forth. i don't have all the answers and i don't remember as much as i would like to, but the details about that night that bring me here today at the ones i will never forget. they have me here today at the ones i will neverforget. they have been me here today at the ones i will never forget. they have been seared into my memory and have haunted me episodically as an adult. when i got to the small gathering, people were drinking beer in a small living room on the first floor of the house. i drank one beer. brett and mark were
3:38 pm
visibly drunk. early in the evening i went visibly drunk. early in the evening iwent up visibly drunk. early in the evening i went up the very narrow set of stairs leading from the living room toa stairs leading from the living room to a second flop to use the rest room. when i got to the top of the stairs i was pushed from behind into a bedroom across from the bathroom. i couldn't see who pushed me. brett and market came into the bedroom and locked the door behind them. there was music playing in the bedroom. it was music playing in the bedroom. it was turned up louder by either brett or mark once we were in the broom. i was pushed onto the bed and brett got on top of me. he began running is hand over my body and grinding into me. i yelled, is hand over my body and grinding into me. iyelled, hoping is hand over my body and grinding into me. i yelled, hoping that someone downstairs might hear me and i tried to get away from him but his weight was heavy. brett groped me and try to take off my clothes. he
3:39 pm
had a hard time because he was very inebriated and because i was wearing a one—piece bathing suit underneath my clothing. i believed he was going to break me. i tried to yelled for help. when i did, brett put his hand over my mouth to stop me from telling. this is what terrified me the bells and as happy most lasting impact on my life. it was hard for me to breathe. i thought brett was accidentally going to kill me. both brett and mark were drunkenly laughing during the attack. they seem to be having a very good time. mark seemed ambivalent at times, urging brett on and at times telling him to stop. a couple of times i made eye contact with mark and thought he might try to help me but he did not. during the assault market came over and jumped on the
3:40 pm
bed twice while brett was on top of me. the last time that he did this, we toppled over and brett was no longer on top of me. i was able to get up and run out of the room. directly across from the bedroom was a small bathroom. i bag inside the bathroom and locked the door. i'd waited until i had brett and mark leave the bedroom, laughing while they walked down the narrow state way, pin bowling off the walls on the way down. i waited and when i did not hear them come back up the stairs i left the bathroom, went down the stair stairwell, to the living room and left the house. i remember being on the street and feeling and enormous sense of relief that i had escaped that house and that i had escaped that house and that brett and mark were not coming outside after me. brett's assault on
3:41 pm
me drastically altered my life for a very long time. i was too afraid and ashamed to tell anyone these details. i did not want to tell my pa rents details. i did not want to tell my parents that i come at age 15, was ina parents that i come at age 15, was in a house without any parents present, drinking beer with boys. i convinced myself that because brett did not rain me, i should just move on and just pretend that it didn't happen. 0ver on and just pretend that it didn't happen. over the years i told very few friends that i had this traumatic experience. i told my husband before we were married that i had experienced a sexual assault. i had experienced a sexual assault. i had never told the details to anyone, the specific details, until may 2012 during a couples counselling session. the reason this came up in counselling is that my husband and i had completed a very extensive, very long beak model of
3:42 pm
our home and i insisted on a second front. , and idea that he and others disagreed with and could not understand. in explaining why i wa nted understand. in explaining why i wanted a second front door, i began to describe the assault in detail. i recall saying that the boy who assaulted me could sometimes be on the us supreme court and spoke a bit about his background at an elitist all boys school. my husband recalls that i named my attacker as brett kavanaugh. after that i named my attacker as brett kava naugh. after that may that i named my attacker as brett kavanaugh. after that may 2012 therapy session, i did my best to ignore the memories of the assault because recounting them cost me to relive the experience and caused panic and anxiety. 0ccasionally i would discuss the assault in an individual therapy session, but talking about it caused more
3:43 pm
reliving of the trauma so i tried not to think about it or discuss it but over the years i went through periods when i thought about the attack. i had confided in some close friends that i had an experience of sexual assault. i stated my assailant was a prominent lawyer george but i did not use his name. i do not recall each person i spoke to about brett's assault and some friends have reminded me of these conversations since the publication of the washington post story. until july 2018 i had never named mr kavanaugh as my attacker outside of therapy. this changed in earlyjuly 2000 and 18. i sort of press reports stating that brett kavanaugh was on the shortlist of a list of very well—qualified supreme court nominees. i thought it was my civic
3:44 pm
duty to relate the information about mr kavanaugh's conduct so those considering his nomination would know about this assault. 0n considering his nomination would know about this assault. on july six i had know about this assault. on july six ihada know about this assault. on july six i had a sense of urgency to relate the information to the senate and the information to the senate and the president as soon as possible before a nominee was selected. i did not know how specifically to do this. i cold my congressional representative and let my perception is now that someone on the president's shortlist had attacked me. i also sent a message to the incredibly washington post confidential line. i did not use my name but i provided the names brett kavanaugh and markjudge. i stated that mr kavanaugh had assaulted me in the 1980s in maryland. this was an extremely hard thing for me to do. but i felt that i couldn't not do. but i felt that i couldn't not do it. over the next two days i told
3:45 pm
a couple of close friends on the beachin a couple of close friends on the beach in california that this tech kavanaugh had beach in california that this tech kava naugh had sexually beach in california that this tech kavanaugh had sexually assaulted me. it was very conflicted over whether to speak out. on it was very conflicted over whether to speak out. 0njuly the 9th i received a return phone call from the office of congresswoman after mr kavanaugh had become the nominee. i met with her staff onjuly the kavanaugh had become the nominee. i met with her staff on july the 18th and with her on july met with her staff on july the 18th and with her onjuly the 20th, describing the assault and discussing my fears about coming forward. later we discussed the possibility of sending a letter to banking member of einstein, who is one of my state senators, describing what occurred. my understanding is that her office delivered a copy of my letter to his office onjuly 30. the letter included my name would also a request that it be kept
3:46 pm
confidential. my hope is that providing the information confidentially would be sufficient to allow the senate to consider mr kavanaugh's to allow the senate to consider mr kava naugh's serious misconduct without having to make myself, my family or anyone's family vulnerable to the personal attacks and invasions of privacy that we have faced since my name became public. ina faced since my name became public. in a letter dated august 31, the senator wrote she would not share the letter without my explicit consent and i appreciated this commitment. sexual assault victims should be able to decide for themselves when and whether their private experiences made public. as the hearing day got closer, i struggled with the terrible choice — doi struggled with the terrible choice — do i share the fact that the senate and put myself and my family in the public spotlight or do i preserve our privacy and allow the senate to make its decision without knowing
3:47 pm
the full truth of his past behaviours? i agonised daily over this decision throughout august and september 2018. the sense of duty that originally motivated me to beat out confidentially to the washington post and to her office when there was still a list of extremely qualified candidates and senatorfor einstein was always there. but my fears of the consequences of speaking out started to increase. during august 2018 the press reported that mr kavanaugh's confirmation was virtually certain. persons painted him as a champion of women's rights and empowerment. i believe that if i came forward, my single voice would be drowned out by a chorus of powerful supporters. by
3:48 pm
the time of the confirmation hearings i had resigned myself to be remaining quiet. letting the committee and the senate make their decision without knowing what mr kavanaugh had done to me. 0nce decision without knowing what mr kavanaugh had done to me. once the press started reporting on the existence of the letter i had sent to the senator, i faced mounting pressure. reporters appeared at my home and my workplace demanding information about the letter in the presence of my graduate students. they cold my bosses and co—workers and left me many messages, making it clear that my name would inevitably be released to the media. i decided to speak out publicly to a journalist who had originally responded to the tip i sent to the washington post and who had gained my trust. it was important me to describe the details of the assault in my own words. since september 16,
3:49 pm
the gate of the washington post story, i have experienced an outpouring of support from people in every state of this country. thousands and thousands of people who have had their lives altered by sexual violence have reached out to shed their experience and thanked me for coming forward. we have received tremendous support from our friends and our community. at the same time, my greatest fears have been realised and db! take has been far worse than what i expected. my family and i have been the target of constant harassment and beth brett and i have been cold the most vile and hateful names are much in bulk. these messages, while far fewer than the expressions of support, have been terrifying and have rocked me to my call. people have posted my personal information and that of my parents online on the internet. this has
3:50 pm
resulted in additional e—mails, calls and threats. by family and i we re calls and threats. by family and i were forced to move out of our home. since september 16 by have been visiting various vesicular locales, at times separated and at times together with the help of security guards. this past tuesday evening by what e—mail was hacked and messages we re what e—mail was hacked and messages were sent out trying to recount my description of the sexual assault. apart from the assault itself, these past couple of weeks have been the ha rd est of past couple of weeks have been the hardest of my life. i have had to be lit this, in front of the world and i seen my life picked apart by people on twitter and other social media, other media and in this body who have never met me or spoken with me. i have been accused of acting out of partisan political motives. those who say that do not know me. i
3:51 pm
am an independent person i i am no one's pawn. my motivation in coming forward was to be helpful and to provide facts about how mr kavanaugh's provide facts about how mr kava naugh's actions have provide facts about how mr kavanaugh's actions have damaged my life so that you could take into serious consideration as you make a decision about how to proceed. it is not my responsibility to determine whether mr kava naugh deserves not my responsibility to determine whether mr kavanaugh deserves to sit on the supreme court. my responsibility is to tell you the truth. i understand that a professional prosecutor has been hired to ask me questions and i am committed to doing my very best to a nswer committed to doing my very best to answer them. i never been questioned bya answer them. i never been questioned by a prosecutor. because the committee members will be judging by a prosecutor. because the committee members will bejudging my credibility, i do hope to engage directly with each of you and at this point i will do my best to a nswer this point i will do my best to answer your questions. i'd request
3:52 pm
some caffeine. a coke or something? that will be great. thank you. thank you very much. before i use my five minutes of questioning, i thought that i would try to remind my colleagues. in this case ms mitchell as well, that the five minutes... the way traditionally i have done, if you ask a question before your time runs out, and even though you go over your time, as long as you aren't filibustering, i will let you ask your question. i am going to make sure that both doctor ford and judge kavanaugh, as chairman of the committee, they are going to get a chance to answer their questions
3:53 pm
fully beyond that five minutes. but when either doctor ford judge kavanaugh gets done, then we immediately go to the next person. i hope that will be done... doctor ford, iam hope that will be done... doctor ford, i am told that you want a break right now and if you do that is fine. i am ok. i got my copy. i think i can proceed. is fine. i am ok. i got my copy. i thinki can proceed. nobody can mix up my c°py thinki can proceed. nobody can mix up my copy brighter so you are pretty fortu nate. up my copy brighter so you are pretty fortunate. now, miss mitchell, you have my five minutes to ask questions. good morning, doctor ford. we have not met. my name is rachel mitchell. ijust wanted to tell you that the first thing i struck me was that you were terrified and i just
3:54 pm
thing i struck me was that you were terrified and ijust wanted to let you know that i am very sorry. that is not right. i note this is tru stful is not right. i note this is trustful so i would like to set course some guidelines that will alleviate that — — course some guidelines that will alleviate that —— stressful. if i ask you a question that you don't understand, please ask me to panic buy it or ask it in a different way. when i ask questions, sometimes i will refer back to other information you have provided. ifi will refer back to other information you have provided. if i do that and i get it wrong, please correct me. i am not going to ask you to guess. i know it was a long time ago. if you do estimate, please let me know that you are estimating. 0k? do estimate, please let me know that you are estimating. ok? we have put before you, and i am surely you have copies of them, five copies the mac pieces of information. the first is a screenshot of a what app texting between you and somebody at the
3:55 pm
washington post. do you have that in front of you? yes. the first to text we re front of you? yes. the first to text were sent by you onjuly six as the mac was a crack? correct. 0njuly the 10th was here last one? correct. are those three comments accurate?” will read them. yes. take your time. there is one correction. i have misused the word i stand as an adjective. ok. bystander means someone who is looking at an assault and the courson named pj was not technically a bystander. so i would not call him a bystander, he was downstairs. what i remember of him was that he was a very tall, nice person. i didn't know him well, but
3:56 pm
he was downstairs and not anywhere near the event. thank you. i would like to take that word out. thank you for clarifying that. the second is the letter that you wrote to the senator dated july 30 of this year. did you buy to yourself? i did.“ stated july 30, did you write it on that day? i believe so. it sounds right. i was in delaware at the time. i could look into my calendar and figured that out. was it written on or about that day? yes. i travelled on the 26th ofjuly two delaware. that makes sense. is the letter accurate? i will take a minute to beat it. i can read fast. —— read it. 0k.
3:57 pm
ok. i have three areas that i would like to address. in the second paragraph where it says, the assault occurred in a suburban area maryland home at a gathering that included me and for others, i can't guarantee that there weren't a few other people that but they are not in my purview of my memory. would it be fairto purview of my memory. would it be fair to say that there were at least four others? yes. what is the second correction? the next sentence begins with kava naugh correction? the next sentence begins with kavanaugh physically pushed me into the bedroom. i would say that i can't promise that markjudge did not assist with that. i don't know. i don't want to put that solely on him. ok. ms mitchell, iwant to
3:58 pm
i don't want to put that solely on him. ok. ms mitchell, i want to keep people within five minutes. is that a major problem for you in the middle of a question? i have got to treat everybody the same. i understand that. and i go to the senator or... yes, sir. please do. we are going to come back to that. 0k. we are going to come back to that. ok. i see. for the benefit of doctor ford, i think she will continue that after the five minutes here.” ford, i think she will continue that after the five minutes here. i would like to begin by putting some letters in the record. thank you. 140 letters from friends and neighbours of the witness and 1000
3:59 pm
female physicians across the country. that's what the letters are. iwant country. that's what the letters are. i want to thank you very much forjob testimony. i know how very, very ha rd forjob testimony. i know how very, very hard it is. why have you held it to yourself all these years as he looked back, can you indicate what the reasons are? “ as you indicate what the reasons are? —— as you look back. you indicate what the reasons are? -- as you look back. i haven't held it in all these years. i did disclose that in the confines of therapy, where i felt like it was an appropriate place to cope with the segway of the event. can you tell us what impact the event had on you?” feel that the sequelae of sexual assault varies by person. for me, personally, anxiety, phobia and ptsd
4:00 pm
like symptoms are the things i have been coping with. so more specifically, claustrophobic, panic and that type of thing. is that the reason for the second door, front door? '5 correct. 0ur reason for the second door, front door? '5 correct. our house does not look aesthetically pleasing from the curb. —— correct. look aesthetically pleasing from the curb. -- correct. and you have that second front door? and it is no place to host global interns. and other students. —— google interns. can you tell us otherwise this has affected your life? the primary impact was in the initial four years after the event. i struggled academically, i struggled very much in chapel hill college when i was 17, i went off to college, i had a very ha rd 17, i went off to college, i had a very hard time. more so than others, forming new friendships and
4:01 pm
especially friendships with boys, andi especially friendships with boys, and i had academic problems. what were... when we spoke and it became very clear how deeply yourself about this and the need that you wanted to remain confident, can you talk about that little bit? -- that remain confident, can you talk about that little bit? —— that you wanted to remain confidential. yes, so i was watching carefully throughout the summer. my original intent, i wa nt to the summer. my original intent, i want to remind you, was to communicate with everyone when there was still a list of candidates who all seemed to be, from my perspective, equally qualified. i was ina perspective, equally qualified. i was in a hurry to try to get the information forward but didn't quite know how to do that. however, once he was selected and it seemed like he was selected and it seemed like he was selected and it seemed like he was popular and it was an assured
4:02 pm
vote, i was calculating daily the risk benefit for me of coming forward and wondering whether i would be jumping in forward and wondering whether i would bejumping in front of forward and wondering whether i would be jumping in front of a train that was headed to where it was headed anyway, and whether i would be personally annihilated. how did you decide to come forward? ultimately, because reporters were sitting outside my home and trying to talk to my dog through the window, to calm the dog down, and a reporter appeared in my graduate classroom and i mistook her for reporter appeared in my graduate classroom and i mistook herfor a student and she came up to ask me a question and i thought that she was a student and turned out she was a reporter. so at that point, i felt like enough was enough. people were holding their colleagues at stanford and leaving messages on their voice mailand e—mail and leaving messages on their voice mail and e—mail saying that they knew my name. —— calling my colleagues. clearly then you may
4:03 pm
address because they were in front of my house. and the mounting pressure seemed like it was just... i needed to say what i needed to say. sorry, i wanted i needed to say what i needed to say. sorry, iwanted to i needed to say what i needed to say. sorry, i wanted to ask you one question about the attack itself. you were very clear about the attack. being pushed into the room, you say, you don't know quite by whom. but that it was brett kavanaugh that whom. but that it was brett kava naugh that covered whom. but that it was brett kavanaugh that covered your mouth to prevent you from screaming. and then he escaped. how are you so sure that it was he? —— and then you escaped. the same way that i'm sure i'm talking to you right now. basic memory functions. and also just the level of norepinephrine and epinephrine in the brain that, as you know, in colours that
4:04 pm
neurotransmitter includes memory into the hippocampus and so the trauma related is kind of locked there is while other details kind of dress. so what you're telling us is that this could not be a case of mistaken identity. absolutely not. thank you, mr chairman. miss mitchell for senator patch. thank you, mrchairman. when mitchell for senator patch. thank you, mr chairman. when they were stopped you're going to tell us a third correction you wanted to make on that statement, i'm sorry, the letter to senator feinstein. it wasn't a correction but i had a comment on it, since we were looking at this letter. i did see markjudge once after the time of the attack and it would be helpful with anyone's resources to figure out
4:05 pm
when he worked there are people wanting more details from the about when the attack occurred, if we could find out when he worked there then i could provides a more detailed timeline as to when the attack occurred. ok, so that is not attack occurred. ok, so that is not a correction in your statement. no. you also wrote out a handwritten statement for the carragher for when you took your polygraph test, is that correct? yes. —— polygrapher. -- polygrapher. and you made corrections to your statement. rose should i not look at this for accuracy... ? should i not look at this for accuracy...? we should i not look at this for accuracy. . . ? we may should i not look at this for accuracy...? we may come back should i not look at this for accuracy. . . ? we may come back to it if you want to refer it. on the washington post article, diedhiou submits to an interview by —— did
4:06 pm
submits to an interview by —— did submits an interview with a reporter for the washington post? correct. finally, was the statement that you provided this morning, i seem to the best of your recollection, that that was accurate. this whole article is accurate? no, the statement you made this morning. yes. i want to talk to you about the day that this happened leading up to the gathering. rose 0k. -- 0k. leading up to the gathering. rose 0k. -- ok. in leading up to the gathering. rose ok. -- ok. in your statement, have you told us everything you remember about the day leading up to that? yes. let mejust about the day leading up to that? yes. let me just ask you some questions and make sure you have thought of everything, 0k? questions and make sure you have thought of everything, ok? you have indicated thatjurat the thought of everything, ok? you have indicated that jurat the country clu b indicated that jurat the country club that day. that's my best estimate of how this could have happened. ok. and when you say best estimate is that based on the fact that you said you weren't there
4:07 pm
pretty much every day? is that a yes? yes. ok. do you recall, prior to getting there, i'm only talking about up to the gathering, had you had anything to drink? not at all. we re had anything to drink? not at all. were you on any sort of medication? 0n them. were you on any sort of medication? on them. you recall knowing before you went he was going to be at the gathering. —— you went he was going to be at the gathering. -- no medication. i rather expecting that markjudge ansley land would be at that gathering. do you recall an expectation that brett kavanaugh would be there? i call. ok. -- i don't recall. let's talk about the gathering from the time you're right up gathering from the time you're right up until you went up the stairs. what was the atmosphere like at the gathering? mr kavanaugh and mrjudge
4:08 pm
we re gathering? mr kavanaugh and mrjudge were extremely inebriated, they had clearly been drinking prior, and the other people at the party were not. and the living room... can ijust follow up, when you said it was clear they had been drinking prior,, do you mean prior to the time they had gotten there or prior to the kind you arrive ? had gotten there or prior to the kind you arrive? prior to the time they arrived. i don't recall who arrived first, though, whether it was near them. please continue. ira call... ican was near them. please continue. ira call... i can scatterfor plan. —— i recall... i can sketch a floor plan. it was a modest, sparsely furnished living room and it was not really a party like the news has made it sound. it was just a gathering that i assumed was going to lead to a party later on, that those boys would attend, because they tended to have parties later at night than i
4:09 pm
was allowed to stay out. so it was kind of a pre—gathering. was allowed to stay out. so it was kind of a pre-gathering. was a loud? no, not in the living room. beside the music you've described that was playing in the bedroom, was there any other music or television or anything like that that was adding...? no. so there wasn't anything like that that was adding. . . ? no. so there wasn't a television playing downstairs? no. doctor ford, thank you for being here. mr chairman, the way to make this enquiry truly credible is to do what we have always done with the information about a nominee comes to light, to use your words this morning, you want to reach the truth. the easy way to do that, ask the fbi to investigate. that is what we have always done. but then investigate, report back to us. the same applies to the serious
4:10 pm
allegations made by deborah ramirez and julie swetnick. let's have a nonpartisan, professional investigation and then take the time to have these witnesses testify. chairman, you and i were both here 27 years ago. at that time, the senate failed anita hill. i said i believed her but i'm concerned that we are doing a lot less than for these three women today, that is my personal view. doctor ford, these three women today, that is my personalview. doctor ford, no matter what happens with this hearing today, no matter what happens with this nomination, i note —— know that there are millions of victims out there who have been inspired by your courage. i am. bravery is contagious and indeed is the driving force behind the need, to movement. and you sharing your story is going to have a lasting,
4:11 pm
positive impact on so many survivors in our country. —— de #metoo movement. we owe you a debt of gratitude for that, doctor. movement. we owe you a debt of gratitude forthat, doctor. some senators have suggested you were simply mixed up about who assaulted you. an alloy ofjudge kavanaugh in the white house even promoted a wild theory about a kavanaugh lookalike. you immediately rejected that theory. as did the innocent man who had been called that lookalike. in fa ct, had been called that lookalike. in fact, he sent a letter to this committee forcefully rejecting this absurd theory, i'll enter that into the record. now, how did you know that kava naugh and the record. now, how did you know that kavanaugh and markjudge? is it possible that you had mixed them up with somebody else? no, it is not. the person that was blamed for the incident is actually the person who
4:12 pm
introduced me to them originally. so he was a member of columbia country clu b he was a member of columbia country club and! he was a member of columbia country club and i don't want to talk about him because i think it's unfair. but he is the person that introduced me to them. what you would not mix up somebody else would brett kavanaugh is that correct? correct. or mark judge? correct. let's go back to the incident. what is the strongest memory you have, of the incident? something you cannot forget? take whatever time you need. indelible in the hippocampus is the uproarious laughter between the two and they're having fun at my expense. you have never forgotten that laughter, then
4:13 pm
laughing at you? they were laughing with each other. and you were the object of the laughter.” with each other. and you were the object of the laughter. i was underneath one of them while the two laughed, two friends having a really good time with one another. let me enter into the record a statement by the national task force to end domestic violence. a letter from 24 members of the house presented as urging the committee to use the approach to that question doctor ford, and a letterfrom 160 approach to that question doctor ford, and a letterfrom160 members of the house asking to delay. doctor ford has at times been criticised
4:14 pm
for what she doesn't remember from 36 years ago. we have numerous experts including a study by the us army, the science says that lapses of memory are consistent with severe trauma and sexual assault. let that be entered. and doctor ford, i'll just conclude with this. you remember what happened, do you not kiss very much so. -- and do you not? very much so. senator graham, it's my understanding this is where you would like to take a break? does that work for you as well? we're here to accommodate you, not you us. thank you. i'm used to being collegial! ms mitchell for senator graham. thank you, mr chairman. you
4:15 pm
told senator feinstein in your letter that you and four others were present. you've corrected that today to say there were at least can perform at others. when you were interviewed by the washington post, you said that there were four boys present at the party and then in your polygraph statement, you said there were four boys and two girls. when you say, two girls, was that you and another for two other girls? me and one other girl. and the other girl's name? the lens. -- leland. so would it be fair to say that at least pj, brett kavanaugh, mark judge, ingram and yourself are present, and possibly others? and one other boy, there were four boys, but i don't know the name of the other boy. have you been contacted
4:16 pm
by anybody saying, hey, i was at the party, to? no, i haven't talked with anyone from that party. ok. now, you've been about what happened when she got up the stairs and so i don't need to go through that again. sorry, ijust need to go through that again. sorry, i just realised need to go through that again. sorry, ijust realised assets and that was inaccurate. i said i haven't spoken with anyone from the party, i have spoken with leland. thank you for correcting that, i appreciate that. you have gone into detail about what happened was you went up the stairs, i don't feel it's necessary to go over those things again. you. have you told us everything you do remember about it? -- 0k, everything you do remember about it? -- ok, thank you. i believe so but if there are other questions i will attempt to answer them. you said the music was solely coming from that
4:17 pm
room, is that correct? correct. and it was turned up once the three of you were inside the room, is that correct? yes. at some point, do you recall it being trained down?” don't remember if it was turned down once i was leaving the house, i don't remember. ok. likely, since i could hear them walking down the stairs they clearly from the bathroom. and the bathroom door was closed when you heard this, is that correct? i could hear them very clearly hitting the walls, going down the stairwell. in fact, in your letter, he said that they went down to the stairs and they were talking with other people. in the house. correct. were you able to hear that conversation? i was not but i was aware that they were downstairs and that i would have to walk past them to get out of the house. let me make sure we are on the same page. were you not able to hear the conversation or not able to
4:18 pm
understand the conversation?” couldn't hear the conversation, i was upstairs. how do you know there was upstairs. how do you know there was a conversation? i'm just assuming, since there was a social gathering, people were talking. i don't know. i could hear them talking as they went down the stairwell, they were laughing. ok. in your letter, you wrote, both loudly stumbled down the stairwell, at which point other persons in the house were talking with them. does that ring a bell? yes. i had to what passed everyone to leave the house, so... your letter... if you're not understanding, i'm sorry. your next sentence, let me try to clarify, you said other persons in the house were talking with them, the letter goes on with the very next sentence, i exited the button, ran out of the house and went home. correct. -- exited the bathroom. you said you do
4:19 pm
not remember how you got home, is that correct? i do not remember, other than that i did not drive. ok. let me show you, if somebody could provide to year map of the various people'shouses at the time and if you could verify that this is where you could verify that this is where you were living at the time. where i was living at the time? yes. ok. mr chairman, do we have a copy of these documents? you want one, we can get you one. before the questions begin so we can follow the testimony. ok, my star said we should not provide a copy. laughter speak plainly with me, please. sure, i'd like to see what she is looking at! laughter you have another 30 seconds now because i was really interrupted. mr
4:20 pm
chairman, senator harris, we do have a blown up copy of this for the members to year that is helpful. ok, i'm going to put chap barks —— check marks next homes i can confirm the and anx marks next homes i can confirm the and an x or? where i can't confirm. can you accurately confirm where you we re can you accurately confirm where you were living at the time?” can you accurately confirm where you were living at the time? i can see the street name but i'm happy to confirm the address. it's river falls. it's a near... what is the place called, the naval research centre? was that a house or an apartment? my parents' home. this chairman asks consent to enter into the record letters of support for doctor ford from her classmates at
4:21 pm
holton—arms school, 1400 women and men who attended dc schools and 15 members of the year loss goal faculty who are calling for a full fbi investigation, iask faculty who are calling for a full fbi investigation, i ask consent to enter these into the record. without objection so ordered. doctor ford, i wa nt objection so ordered. doctor ford, i want you to know that your courage in coming forward has given countless americans the strength to face their own by shattering past and begin to heal their wounds. by example, you have brought many families into an honest and sometimes painful dialogue that should have occurred a long time ago. i should have occurred a long time ago. lam should have occurred a long time ago. i am sorry for what this is done to you and your family. no one, no one should face harassment, death threats and disparaging comments by cheap shot politicians simply for telling the truth. you and your family should know that for every scurrilous charge and every pathetic tweet, there are thousands of
4:22 pm
americans, women and men, who believe support you and thank you for your courage. watching your experience, it's no wonder that many sexual assault survivors— past and spend their lives suffering in pain silence. —— hide their past. you had absolutely nothing to gain by bring absolutely nothing to gain by bring a beast acts to the senate judiciary committee. the fact that you're testifying here today... double that by bringing these facts to the senate judiciary committee. the fact that you're testifying, calling for an fbi investigation, the fact that you're willing to name both caven and eyewitnesses, stands in stark contrast to what we are seen on the other side. —— name but kavanaugh and eyewitnesses. the fbi should have investigated your charges as they did in the anita hill hearing but they are not. markjudge should be subpoenaed from his hideaway and required to testify under oath but he has not. judge kavanaugh, if he truly believes there is no evidence,
4:23 pm
no witnesses that can prove your case, should be joining no witnesses that can prove your case, should bejoining us no witnesses that can prove your case, should be joining us and demanding a correctly i investigation but he has not. —— demanding a thorough fbi investigation. you have come before this committee and this nation alone. i know you're joined by cancel and family. a prosecutor on the republican side will continue to ask questions to test your memory and veracity. after spending decades trying to forget that awful night, it's no wonder your recollection is less than perfect. a polished lawyer can create a seamless story but if survivor cannot be expected to rememberevery survivor cannot be expected to remember every painful detail. —— a seamless dolan polished liar can create a seamless story. kavanaugh said, i never had any sexual contact
4:24 pm
with doctor ford, i'm not questioning that doctor ford may have been assaulted at some place at some time. last night, the republican staff released a timeline that shows they have interviewed two people who claim they were the ones who actually assaulted you. i'm asking you to address this new defence of mistaken identity directly. doctor ford, with what degree of certainty do you believe brett kava naugh degree of certainty do you believe brett kavanaugh assaulted you? 100%. 100%. in the u sent to senator feinstein, you wrote, i have not seen kavanaugh since the assault, i did see markjudge once, where he was extremely uncomfortable in seeing me. would you please describe that encounter at the safeway with markjudge and that encounter at the safeway with mark judge and what that encounter at the safeway with markjudge and what led you to believe he was uncomfortable? yes. i was going to be safeway, this is the one on this corner of falls under
4:25 pm
the road. i was with my mother and i was a teenager so i wanted to go in the other to are from her. so i chose the wrong war, the door i chose the wrong war, the door i chose was the one where markjudge was, that like he was working there. —— the wrong door. he was arranging the shopping cart. i said hello to him. and his face was white. and very uncomfortable, saying hello back. and we had previously been friendly at the times that we saw each other over the previous two yea rs, each other over the previous two years, albeit not many times, we had a lwa ys years, albeit not many times, we had always been friendly with one another. i would always been friendly with one another. iwould not always been friendly with one another. i would not characterise him as not friendly, he was just nervous and not really wanting to speak with me. he looks a little bit ill. how long did this occur after the incident? i would estimate 6-8
4:26 pm
weeks. thank you, mr chairman. before we take a break, i can't let what was said, by the way, he's my friend, we were a lot of legislation together, you talked about the obstruction from the other side. i cannot let it go by, what you have heard me say so many times, between july 30 and september 13, there were 45 days this committee could have been investigating this situation and her privacy would have been protected. so something happened here in between on your side is that the whole country, well, not the whole country should have known about it, not know about it, we should have investigated it. we will ta ke should have investigated it. we will take a breakdown for 15 minutes. so there we are, a break of a quarter of an hour, as you havejust been hearing, of those momentous
4:27 pm
senatejudiciary been hearing, of those momentous senate judiciary committee been hearing, of those momentous senatejudiciary committee meetings into the evidence of doctor christine blasey ford. a california university professor with allegations of sexual misconduct against donald trump's nominee for the supreme court, brett kavanaugh. very controversial nominee who, if he were to be on the supreme court, and this is the real significance of all this, would tilt the balance of the supreme court, the 9—member supreme court, into a much more socially conservative direction. as to sum up what doctor ford has been saying at those hearings, she says she was terrified, she says, i'm here not because want to be, i'm here not because want to be, i'm here because i believe it is my civic duty to tell you what happens to need while brett kavanaugh and i work in high school. and she said that a drunken brett kavanaugh had attacked her and tried to remove her clothing while they were at a
4:28 pm
gathering of teenagers, a house party in maryland, when he was 17 yea rs old party in maryland, when he was 17 years old and she was 15 years old. quote, she said, brett groped me and tried to take off my clothes. he had a hard time because he was very inebriated and because i was wearing a one—piece bathing suit and my clothing. i believed he was going to rape me. i tried to dell for help. she said, eventually she managed to escape from the room where brett kavanaugh and another boy were attacking her. she said she managed to escape and get out of the house. and she was asked for her one abiding memory of that attack and it was the, what she called the uproarious laughter of the two boys. they were drunkenly laughing, she said, during the attack. so there we are. it's been an extraordinary day on capitol hill and it's going to continue. there is going to be more
4:29 pm
evidence from christine blasey ford coming up injust over ten minutes, we'll be back at those proceedings as soon as they resume. but let's ta ke as soon as they resume. but let's take a pause right now and bring the latest weather forecast, with helen. hello. at this time of year it often feels like to seasons in one day, we are starting to get the lengthier nights and chilly fog lasting through the rush hour, but then sunshine follows and september sunshine still quite strong. however, not much variation in the temperature further north, but rain continuing to trundle southwards. by the time it gets to northern england and north wales this evening, there will be little left on the weather front but bringing call their behind. so trained the tables are right with more cloud in the south, not quite so cold, could be a spot of drizzle. whilst after a mild night, temperatures could tumble lower, touching ground frost in the glens
4:30 pm
first thing. but a lovely start. hubble tends to meander in first thing. please continues far north of scotla nd thing. please continues far north of scotland attempted lower in the south and it will feel cooler as well because of the wind, breeze and stronger as well. it feels mostly fine for saturday, perhaps a chance of showers by sunday. this is bbc news — our latest headlines. "i thought he was going to rape me" — christine blasey ford gives evidence to a senate judiciary committee — and breaks down as she delivers her emotional testimony. brett groped me and tried to take off my clothes. he had a hard time, because he was very inebriated, and because he was very inebriated, and because i was wearing a one—piece bathing suit underneath my clothing. i believed he was going to rape me. dramatic evidence at the grenfell inquiry —
4:31 pm
the commissioner of the london fire brigade says she feared some of her firefighters wouldn't come out alive. the eu's chief brexit negotiator, michel barnier, is meeting the labour leader, jeremy corbyn, in brussels. we will be back at those us senate hearings in just we will be back at those us senate hearings injust a we will be back at those us senate hearings in just a few minutes, but in the meantime, a full sports round—up with hugh. in the meantime, a full sports round-up with hugh. the players from tea m round-up with hugh. the players from team europe and team usa are just making their entrances at the opening ceremony at this week's ryder cup, that is where we find our reporter, john watson, who is there for us. it has been a pretty busy day where you are. yes, hugely anticipated contest, this one. not least because of course we know it is the americans that come into this as the reigning champions, having won two years ago,
4:32 pm
but so many fascinating subplots, tiger was having won his last championship, could he steerthem tiger was having won his last championship, could he steer them to victory on european soil? some 25 years since the united states managed to win here on european soil. we have just seenjim furyk, the us captain, out alongside thomas bjorn, the european captain. they at some point in this opening ceremony will give out those all—important names as to who will be playing those four ball matches tomorrow morning. for the europeans, those four ball matches tomorrow morning. forthe europeans, they will be desperate to get off to a good start, because let's not forget it was at hazeltine four years ago, it was at hazeltine four years ago, it was at hazeltine four years ago, it was the four balls they started with and the americans won all of those opening matches. there will be very interesting to see who will play at ten past eight when the
4:33 pm
first pairing goes out. we will see those names read out shortly. it will be a fascinating twist, i think, certainly when we know those names, who will be on that first tee tomorrow morning. we are just looking at some of the players just in front of a huge crowd at the gulf national. what has the atmosphere been like, has gripped the french? interesting that some 43% of tickets on sale have gone to french nationals, so there is clearly an appetite and an interest. whether or not they will immerse themselves in that ryder cup spirit, as we know, it can be a very boisterous affair, the players whipping up the crowds. we saw that early on with rory mcilroy. that is what the european team will want, to create that partisan atmosphere that makes this tournament so unique. they will want the crowd on their side and with a lot of the french here as spectators, they will hope they will join in and create that atmosphere that could benefit europe. we saw
4:34 pm
the benefits it gave the united states last time out at hazeltine, it got rocas at times, rory mcilroy complaining that the crowd were getting a little bit too over exuberant and over the top. that could help the unity and is —— the europeans. as we know, americans come into this as slight favourites, europe are the underdogs. nine major winners in that american side compared to europe's five. when you look at their three rookies, justin thomas being one of them crawl would you ever imagine he would come into this being a major winner himself on and of course having been occupying that world number one position as well? all eyes on those pairings when they get them to see who will be taking the opening tee shot tomorrow morning. we will be back withjohn as it is we have those pairings, if not keep and eye on the bbc sport website. the head of the london fire brigade has said
4:35 pm
the grenfell tower fire was unprecedented, and "like a scene from a disaster movie". dany cotton has been giving her dramatic testimony to the inquiry in to the fire this morning. she said it could not have been extinguished even if crews had had specific training in blazes involving cladding — and said she feared some of the firefighters going into the building would not survive. 0ur correspondent sophie long reports. this is the first appearance of dany cotton at the inquiry into the fire that claimed the lives of 72 people. as commissioner of the london fire brigade, she was ultimately responsible for the operation to bring the blaze under control. in a written statement, she said... today she told the inquiry there were many aspects of the fire that were unprecedented. complete failure of the building, the ability of the fire to travel
4:36 pm
through the building, reach all the compartments, to travel across central communal parts and areas, for the fire to spread as rapidly as it did, for it to involve as many people... i could go on forever. what happened that night to that building would have been deemed to have been a completely unrealistic scenario that would never happen. the enquiry had previously heard that london fire brigade training was inadequate. she said it was unfair to expect firefighters to be trained for a scenario that they believed would never happen. we learn from every operational incident but in the same manner i wouldn't develop a training package for a space shuttle to land on the shard, that is an instance of that scale so i wouldn't expect to be developing a response to something that simply shouldn't happen.
4:37 pm
dany cotton also faced questions about the so—called stay put policy, where residents were told to stay in their flats if they weren't directly affected by flames, smoke or heat. she told the inquiry that was the right advice at the time. the buildings were designed for the fire to stay in the compartments of origin for 60 minutes and for the vast majority of those, they do that. therefore on balance it is safer to remain in your flat and not open doors and become compromised. by by what is going on outside. if the building behaves correctly and it does not go beyond the compartment of origin, that is the safest option. many of those who survived spoke of life—saving acts of heroism that night, others say lessons must be learned. sophie long, bbc news. jeremy corbyn is meeting the eu's chief brexit negotiator michel barnier in brussels today.
4:38 pm
it comes after his warning that a no—deal brexit would be a "national disaster". the labour leader is travelling to brussels, alongside shadow brexit secretary sir keir starmer for the talks. earlier, i spoke to our brussels reporter adam fleming and asked him about the importance of this meeting. forjeremy corbyn it is quite important because it is an opportunity for him to explain to michel barnier labour's newly clarified brexit position after their conference. for the eu side, it is another opportunity to get a sense of the lay of the land politically in the uk because eu officials know there is a real chance that the brexit deal, when it is done, and reaches the british parliament, the only way it will get through is potentially with votes from labour, so they want to know what is going on there. but eu officials say, this is just another example of michel barnier‘s door being open to whoever wants to knock on it from the uk. he has seen notjustjeremy corbyn in the past, but nicola
4:39 pm
sturgeon the first minister of scotland, nigel farage, the former leader of ukip, so this is a chat with an interesting person as opposed to any part of the brexit negotiations. actually, i detected a slight bit of awkwardness on the eu side when you ask them about the timing of this. they say it is a coincidence and it is happening because jeremy corbyn was here for another event in brussels anyway. this shouldn't be seen as some kind of strategy in the middle of the prime minister's strategy being criticised in salzburg last week and her party conference starting in birmingham at the weekend. in the wake of salzburg, and the debacle that many people saw that as, where did you think we have now with the eu's position on the brexit negotiations? the strange thing is that, for all the drama in salzburg, which was very dramatic, last week, if you look at both sides's positions in substance, nothing really much has changed. the eu is still saying to the uk, these are the red lines. you will either have to
4:40 pm
have a canada—style trade deal which means you will have friction at your borders and potentially a hard border between northern ireland and ireland or you need to change the red lines and go to something that looks much closer, a relationship more like norway's, and then you get theresa may saying, no, we are sticking with our red lines thank you very much. so i am not clear exactly what could happen in the next couple of weeks. and then we have got another big milestone on the 17th of october which is the next summit of eu leaders. when you talk to team barnier, they say the two things they can do our start work drafting this little the region which will be signed by all 28 leaders which will sketch out the parameters of the future relationship after brexit and maybe do a bit of tinkering with the backstop. that is the back—up plan for preventing a hard border of ireland with ireland. perhaps changing the language to make it look more palatable to the uk. but either a lot is going to happen or nothing is going to happen.
4:41 pm
we are hearing evidence from christine blasey ford, the university professor who says that brett kavanaugh, donald trump's nomination for the supreme court, sexually assaulted her, 36 years ago. in her evidence a little bit earlier on, and we have been in a quarter of an hour break, but in her earlier evidence she said i am not here today because i want to be, i am terrified. i am here because i believe it is my siddiq —— my siddiq duty to tell you what went on when brett kava naugh duty to tell you what went on when brett kavanaugh and i were young. she said that brett kavanaugh groped her, tried to take off her clothes, put his hand over her mouth to stop her screaming. i believed he was going to rape me, she said, i tried to yell for help. when she was asked
4:42 pm
for her abiding memory, to yell for help. when she was asked for herabiding memory, orthat alleged attack, she said it was the uproarious laughter of brett kavanaugh and the other boy who was in the room at the time. she said she had finally managed to escape and get out of the room, lock herself into a bathroom, and then managed to escape from the house. so we arejust managed to escape from the house. so we are just waiting for doctor christine blasey ford to come back into that session of the senate you do it committee, when she will be taking more questions from senators about her account. they are allowed five minutes each to outline their questions to her. this is a hearing, which has riveted americans. it has been broadcast across the united states, and around the world, of course, and it is hugely important, because the supreme court has so much power in the united states, and
4:43 pm
brett kavanaugh, donald trump's nominee, would tilt the balance of the nine members supreme court, and it isa the nine members supreme court, and it is a very fine balance, but he is a social conservative, on issues like gay rights and abortion, and he would make the supreme court is donald trump wants, much more socially conservative, notjust in the short—term, for decades to come, potentially the next 30 years or so, so that is why this is such a pivotal and important hearing, and of course it could have a huge impact on the presidency of donald trump himself, and hisjudgment of character. we are just waiting for doctor christine blasey ford, that university professor of psychology, to come back into the room and takes a more questions. she was pretty close to tears throughout her evidence, she was nervous, she was talking about how she had received
4:44 pm
death threats, and horrific abuse on social media, twitter and other social media, twitter and other social media, twitter and other social media, since making her allegations, but she also said that she had had huge support from many people, including many women, who have also suffered sexual misconduct, and have never told their stories. and one or two of the senators actually congratulating her on coming forward, and saying she had inspired women across the country to come forward and tell their stories. sojust country to come forward and tell their stories. so just waiting, then, for that evidence to resume. she has been seated at the table in what is a packed room, flanked by her lawyers, facing a bank of senators, cameras taking pictures of
4:45 pm
overtime when she walks in and gives her evidence, and it has been an assured performance, but nervous, and as! assured performance, but nervous, and as i say, emotional, often very close to tears. let's listen in again as dr christine blasey ford continues her evidence. this last break came just a little bit later, idid not break came just a little bit later, i did not call it at the right time. we are going to have a vote at 12.40, is it possible for you to go from now until then without a break? yes. ok, so now it is senator cotton's time to stop proceed, ms mitchell. thank you, senator, i have a blow out to my right of the map that was shown to you. the address indicated on here as belonging to your family is what all the property tax records showed as being your
4:46 pm
address. ok. just put it into perspective i would like to show you a further zoomed out picture, so we can put it into perspective. so we can put it into perspective. so we can show the greater washington area. you can see the beltway on that, the beltway area. ok. and the number three, if we can look at that, we drew a one mile radius around the country club, and then we... mr chairman, again, we don't have these documents. no, we're not, thatis have these documents. no, we're not, that is why she showed through different documents, because they depict three different things, so we would like to see all three documents please, so we can follow along. proceed, please. ok. looking at the third thing here, we calculated the distance from the closest point to your house from a mile radius of the country club, and
4:47 pm
then the farthest point. you can see it is 6.2 and of course 8.2 miles. you have described this as being near the country club, wherever this house was, is that right?” near the country club, wherever this house was, is that right? i would describe it as somewhere between my house and the country club, in that facility that is shown in your picture, and the country club is about a 20 minute drive from terence's home. a 20 minute drive, and of course i have marked as the crow flies. would it be fair to say that somebody drove you somewhere, either to the party, that somebody drove you somewhere, eitherto the party, or that somebody drove you somewhere, either to the party, or home from the party? correct. ok, has anyone come forward to say to you, hey, remember, iwas come forward to say to you, hey, remember, i was the one that drove you home? no. ok. in yourjuly six text to the washington post you looked at earlier, you said the sava nt looked at earlier, you said the savant in the midst to lay to 80s.
4:48 pm
in your letter to senator finds time you said it happened in the early 80s. in your polygraph statement you said it was high school summer in the 80s, and you actually had written in, and this was one of the corrections i wrote in a new cross that out. later in your interview with the washington post, you were more specific you believed it occurred in the summer of 1982, and use of the end of your sophomore year. yes. use of the same thing in your prepared statement. how were your prepared statement. how were you able to narrow down the timeframe? i can't give the exact date, and i would like to be more helpful about the date, and if i knew when mark judge helpful about the date, and if i knew when markjudge worked at the platonic safe way i would be able to be more helpful in that way. i am just using memories of when i got my drivers license, i was 15 at the time, andl drivers license, i was 15 at the time, and i did not drive home from that party or to that party, and once i did have my drivers license, i liked to drive myself.”
4:49 pm
once i did have my drivers license, i liked to drive myself. i assume the legal driving age was 16? yes. 0k. the legal driving age was 16? yes. ok. you have talked about attending therapy, in your text to the washington post, dated 7—6, so that is the very first statement we have from you, you put in there, quote, have therapy records, talking about it. i want to make sure i understand that, did you already have your therapy records at that time?” that, did you already have your therapy records at that time? i had looked at them online, to see if they existed, yes. ok, so this was something that was available to you ona something that was available to you on a computer, like a patient portal? actually no, it was in the office of a provider. she helped me go through the record to locate whether i had record of this conversation that i had remembered. did you show a full or partial set
4:50 pm
of those marriage therapy records to the washington post?” of those marriage therapy records to the washington post? i don't remember, i remember summarising for her what they said, so i'm not quite sure if i actually gave her the record. ok, so it is possible that the reporter did not see these notes? i don't know, i can't recall whether she saw them directly, or whether she saw them directly, or whether ijust whether she saw them directly, or whether i just told whether she saw them directly, or whether ijust told her what they said. have you shown them to anyone else, beside your counsel? just eat counsel —— just the counsel. else, beside your counsel? just eat counsel -- just the counsel. it is fairto counsel -- just the counsel. it is fair to say that brett kavanaugh's name is not listed in those notes? he is not listed in those notes. and that the notes say that there were four boys in the room? it describes
4:51 pm
the sexual assault, and it says are erroneously by four boys, so the therapist but the context wrong. goode and you corrected that to the washington post? correct. thank you, dr christine blasey ford, a lot of hoopla proud of you today. from a prosecutor's view, one of the ha rd est prosecutor's view, one of the hardest things that we have to do is to speak to somebody who has come forward with an allegation of sexual assault and let them know that we can't provide the evidence to go forward to trial. it is a hard day forward to trial. it is a hard day for the prosecutor to do that, and so both because making a sincere and thorough investigative effort is such an important consolation to the victim in that circumstance, and because it is what you are obliged to do, professionally, sincere and thorough investigation is critical
4:52 pm
to these claims in a prosecutor's world. it may be the most basic thing that we owe a victim or a witness coming forward is to make sure that we give them a full, thorough and sincere investigation. you have met all of the standards of what i might call preliminary credibility, with your initial statement. you have vivid, specific and detailed recollections, something prosecutors look for, your recollections are consistent with known facts, you made prior consistent statements, something else prosecutors and lawyers look for, you are willing to and did take a lie detector test, and you are willing to testify here. here you are, subject to professional cross—examination by a prosecutor.
4:53 pm
so you have met any condition any prosecutor could expect to go forward , prosecutor could expect to go forward, and yet there has been no sincere or thorough investigation of your claims. you specifically asked foran your claims. you specifically asked for an fbi investigation, did you not? yes. and are you aware that when the fbi begins investigating, they might find corroborative evidence and exculpatory evidence?” don't know what exculpatory evidence is. not helpfulto don't know what exculpatory evidence is. not helpful to your recollections and version of events, helpful to the accused? understood, yes. so it could go either way. yes. and you are still notjust willing but insistent that the fbi should investigate york recollection in yourclaim? ——
4:54 pm
investigate york recollection in your claim? —— your recollection. yes, i feel it could be more helpful in that case in providing some of the details that maybe people are wanting to know about. and as we know, they didn't, and i submit that never, never in the history of background investigations has an investigation not been pursued when new credible, the rocketry information was brought forward about the nominee or the candidate. i don't think this has ever happened in the history of fbi background investigations. maybe somebody can prove me wrong, but it is wildly unusual and out of character, and in my view it is a grave disservice to you, and! my view it is a grave disservice to you, and i want to take this moment to apologise to you for that, and to report to anybody who might be listening that when somebody is
4:55 pm
willing to come forward, even under those circumstances, even having been not given the modicum of courtesy and support of a proper investigation, you shown yourself particularly proud in doing that. and the responsibility for the decision to have this be i think the only background investigation in history to be stopped as to robert serry information came forward, belongs with 13 men. the president, director array of the fbi, and the 11 members of the majority of this committee. —— director ray. as to the committee boss back investigation, the fact that mr cavanaugh's investigation, the fact that mr cava naugh's alleged accomplice investigation, the fact that mr cavanaugh's alleged accomplice has not been subpoenaed, cross examined under oath, has not been interviewed by the fbi, tells you all you need to know about how this performance is. the very bare minimum that a person who comes forward is owed is
4:56 pm
sincere and thorough investigation, and you have been denied that, and i will make a personal pledge to you hear that, however long it takes, in whatever form i can hear that, however long it takes, in whateverform i can do it, whenever it's possible, i will do whatever is in my power to ensure that your claims get a full and proper investigation, and not just claims get a full and proper investigation, and notjust this. thank you for being here. since the issue has come up so many times, i would like to comment. the new yorker published an anonymous account of allegation september 14, two days later, dr ford identified herself as the victim in a post article, detailing her allegations i immediately directed my staff to investigate. september 17, dr immediately directed my staff to investigate. september17, dr ford's council went on several television shows, requesting that her client have an opportunity to tell her
4:57 pm
story. the following monday i give dr ford a week to prepare her testimony and come to washington, dc. on september testimony and come to washington, dc. 0n september17, testimony and come to washington, dc. on september 17, the committee investigated staff reached out to dr ford and judge kavanaugh to follow up, judge kavanaugh accepted the opportunity to speak, dr ford declined. in his interview on seb to the 17th, judge kavanaugh... declined. in his interview on seb to the 17th, judge kavanaugh. .. you are watching momentous proceedings at the us senate committee, where dr christine blasey ford, a university professor, has been the learning her accelerations —— has been detailing her allegations thatjudge kavanaugh sexually assaulted her back in the 19805, sexually assaulted her back in the 1980s, 36 years ago. much more coming up in the news at five with huw edwards. today at five.
4:58 pm
at the us senate — the powerful testimony of a woman who alleges she was sexually assaulted by a man who is now a judge nominated for the us supreme court. christine blasey ford says she came under intense pressure to tell her story, as she detailed her allegations of assault dating back 30 years. i tried to yell for help. when i did he put his hand over my mouth to stop me from yelling. this is what terrified me most and has had a lasting impact on my life. it was ha rd lasting impact on my life. it was hard for me to believe and i thought that brett was going to accidentally
4:59 pm
kill me. judge brett kavanaugh — the man nominated by president trump
5:00 pm

41 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on