Skip to main content

tv   Americas Newsroom With Bill Hemmer and Sandra Smith  FOX News  September 27, 2018 6:00am-9:00am PDT

6:00 am
the hearings begin at 10:00. >> look like it is going to go 6 or 7 hours and the wildcard here is capitol hill police expect protests and disruptions in the hearing room. they say they will eject the protesters with the same efficiency of last time. >> that will throw brett kavanaugh. he is used to that.
6:01 am
>> what they have done to this man is incredible. >> always interested in hearing from her, but this is getting into the twilight zone, we are talking about brett kavanaugh being reckless during high school. i have a hard time believing he did it then. >> i think the only way to get to a fair process is for them members of the committee to have more witnesses and evidence beyond adjuster dr. ford and judge kavanaugh. >> it would defy all sense of morality. for the judiciary committee to go forward with the vote next friday. there should be an fbi investigation and then a hearing. >> giving the women a major chance to speak. now it's possible all hear that and i'll say hey, i'm changing
6:02 am
my mind. that is possible. we want to give them a chance to speak. because that was quite something this morning. the chairman and ranking member will both give opening statements. dr. ford will give her statement or opening statement. no time limit there. it then dr. christine blasey ford will answer questions. then judge kavanaugh will come in. again, note time limit. judge kavanaugh will then answer questions. >> sandra: here is how questioning it is expected to go. they will get oh 15 minute round for each witness. counsel can ask questions on behalf of the senators that they choose to do it that way, but both of the witnesses will be exactly the same. peter doocy is reporting live from capitol hill, where there is a lot of buzz and anxiety this morning. what new evidence has just emerged that raises doubts about dr. ford's accusations? >> martha, two people have come
6:03 am
forward to say that her memory of this incident in the 1980s might actually be of them. they wrote to the senate judiciary committee. apparently first on monday, and that is when the committee had the first interview with the man who believed he, not judge kavanaugh, had the encounter with dr. ford in 1982. he submitted a written statement earlier in the day. that was monday. then comes wednesday when the committee tells us committee investigative staff spoke with another man who believes he, not judge kavanaugh, have the encounter with dr. ford in 1982 youth that is the basis of her allegation. he explained his recollection of the details of the encounter. we also learned late last night that three senate offices had allegations mailed to them. senator ford got one that was totally anonymous, the white house got one that had a name that the accuser has recanted his story. kamala harris got one totally anonymous as well. and when there is no contact
6:04 am
info, there is no way for investigators to follow up. we understand that those allegations are not being treated seriously. martha. >> martha: so, what we know about the kind of preparation about the prosecutor, rachel mitchell, who will be asking a lot of these questions, what has she done so far? >> she came here to the senate office buildings last night to meet with the republicans that are she will be helping. one of those senators, john kennedy. >> i don't know if this is going to be an issue of competing versions of the truth as much as it is going to be competing versions of who remembers what. 40 years ago, 35 years ago as a long time. >> but democratic members of the judiciary committee are packed, calling for delays to the process. they want something new. they have a letter where we are writing to request that you
6:05 am
immediately withdraw the nomination of brett kavanaugh to be an associate justice on the supreme court or directly fbi to reopen its background investigation and thoroughly investigate the multiple accusations of sexual assault. something very interesting, when they are setting up the room, dirksen, walked up to the table where dr. ford will be sitting, and somebody wrote on the stationary their "good luck, dr. ford." we don't know who wrote it. martha. >> martha: think you. >> bret: we are being told that we could be seeing a different brett kavanaugh. people close to him saying it is going to be different than any interview, whereas times he came off as robotic. he may be much more indignant today and angry about some of these charges. he may even call for an investigation, which would be fascinating, if it goes down that road. >> martha: it certainly would. i think that a lot of the look of that interview was that he was robotic.
6:06 am
he needs to be a little bit more personal, some indignation perhaps about the charges against him if he wants to be put forceful and persuasive in terms of convincing the panel that he is credible and saying that none of this is true. >> bret: let's bring in our panel here. chris wallace. anchor of fox news at night. marie harf, cohost of "benson and harf." you cannot overstate this. we really don't know what is going to happen today. >> we don't. it's a spectacle, and wheat like spectacles as reporters, and obviously the people watching today like spectacles, but as though charges have gone on, what a profound sense of sadness with at this hearing, we thought that it was going to be about high constitutional issues, second amendment, roe vs. wade, and now it is going to be about beach week in 1982 and who was
6:07 am
not what party in chevy chase. look at, the #metoo movement is important, and anyone who has read their own statement, she absolutely believes that brett kavanaugh did this. it is important particularly in today's world, but it has also been weaponize. and i think that the movement is in jeopardy because some of these charges are very credible, whether you believe it is brett kavanaugh or somebody else, something bad happened to her. some of them are incredible, preposterous, and that is going to get swept up into this, and in the end, everybody's going to be damaged. when the day is over, we are not going to know what happened that night. it is not going to have a perry mason movement, if you don't know what that means, look it up. it is going to be his version, her version, she is going to be damage, his reputation will be
6:08 am
permanently damaged. i was thinking we have a car wreck, and we just can't stop ourselves when we see, and that is what is happening today. it is a car wreck. >> martha: there is an enormous amount at stake for brett kavanaugh and for dr. blasey ford, who perhaps never really wanted to be sitting there today. there are mixed opinions on how she is seen in all of this. you know, your thoughts as we get ready to watch what we will clearly never forget. >> i think chris is right. i don't think anybody comes out looking good. i don't think dr. ford, brett kavanaugh, the committee. everybody is hurting. this is ugly. at the beginning of this process, i predicted that it would be an ugly thing.
6:09 am
looks like the balance in the court was in play. worse even than i imagined. this is a terrible moment all the way around. nobody gets out of this in good shape. you talk about how the demeanor of brett kavanaugh, whether that will be sufficiently militant in defending himself. i remember clarence thomas, when he was facing sexual misconduct charges, it was going badly for him. and he turned the tables on the committee by calling it "a high-tech lynching." and of course, they were convinced by that. the race angle, that helps him. but that didn't do the process for any good. these things are ugly, and we need to restores some sense of dignity to the court because it has all been lost here. our colleagues who have participated in it are disgrace disgraced. >> bret: even in the middle of the country, you may hear a lot of backlash especially about these latest charges and how they have been handled. and people are fed up with this
6:10 am
entire process. what really matters here are the senators. there is a picture that is captured of senator feinstein talking in the hallway with senator lisa murkowski. they are engaged in this conversation. that is really what this comes down to. susan collins from maine, jeff flake from arizona, how they vote, that is how this nomination hinges. >> sandra: they can only lose one senator, and then vice president pence would have to come into break the 50/50 type. it is a very difficult calculation to keep everyone together. with the conversation that we have had, they would potentially come over, i don't think any of them wants to be the 50 of, though. something i think is interesting about doctor for testifying today is the fact that the only other person who wrote her story because she hasn't talked to the committee is the man who gave her her lie detector test. we asked him a lot of questions. he talked to her for a couple of
6:11 am
hours. he has really gone through these facts with her, but at the end of it, he only answered 22 questions, and that's it. he told us a lot more about what she told him about the interaction that night in the room. she said she looked at more judge and thought that he may have been conflicted. try to get his help. what about those jumping on the bed that she says ultimately lead to all of them falling off. she described it as engaging in some kind of horseplay with brett kavanaugh. he wasn't joining in the alleged assault but they were roughhousing. it was a different description then we have heard before, but in the end, he only asked her to questions. he said she was truthful. so he doesn't get to what he said, -- >> bret: there are two different things. there is the letters, and the polygraph. they don't line up specifically. >> sandra: then he had a
6:12 am
conversation with her after she gave him the written statement. thanks crosser, facts change. he spent an hour and a half to two hours with her, so he knows the story better than anyone else other than her legal team, and at the end of that, he said that she thought she was consistent, she freely believes what he told her. he did not think that the inconsistencies were significant, but there are a couple. >> martha: so, murray, what we saw when the democrats tried to shut it down right out of the gate, and i think the big question is what is their tactic going to be? is this going to play out as we just explained it? or is there some kind of different strategies that we are about to find out, do you think it? >> i think we can't forget the political backdrop. we go to the polls enzyme midterms. when we sought with clarence thomas, the very next election
6:13 am
cycle, record numbers of women came out to vote. the democrats are already counting on that happening in this midterm election from all of the polling, from all of the data that they have seen. i think that the calculation is that this process politically will help them. but martha, i think that depends on democrats today. if i were advising them, not doing the grandstanding, i know it is hard for some of them, but taking the process seriously. this is not about a political ad. this is not about 2020 and who's running for president. they need to show that they are taking the process seriously and not just using it for partisan gain. i think the other question, martha, is that in the past 24-48 hours, we now have three, four, five accusers. some named and with more details. i think that the democrats will focus not just on dr. ford about what they will say is a pattern emerging now. of someone who is an aggressive drunk. they are going to look to these women across the country, we have dr. ford's testimony.
6:14 am
she said in her opening statement, i'm here today not because i want to be, i am terrified. i am here because i believe it is my civic duty. i think democrats are counting on that message resonating with female voters across the country, and we can't ignore the politics. unfortunately. >> bret: we are dealing obviously with the supreme court case. he could be on the court for 30 or 40 years. dealing with issues that matter to our country for a long time. it was kind of amazing to watch the press conference, chris, yesterday, from the present. an hour and a 25 minutes. a lot of the questions dealing with this day, this moment here at some of them about accusations that the president has had himself. to be, i have had a lot of false charges made against me. i am a very famous person, unfortunately. i've been a famous person for a long time, but i've had a lot of false charges made against me. really false charges. i know friends who have had false charges.
6:15 am
people want fame, they want money. they want whatever. so i view it differently than somebody sitting at home and watching television, saying oh, judge kavanaugh, this and that. >> bret: is saying that there are a lot of false charges out there. >> chris: he did say under questioning, and what could he say? he was asked to argue. he said look at, i will watch them both, is it conceivable i could change my mind for brett kavanaugh, yes, it is, but that wasn't -- over and over again, he cast a tremendous doubt on women making accusations against powerful men. he talked about how dangerous it is, we are in a time when you are guilty until proven innocent, rather than the other way around. it was a fascinating exchange. just at the end, the last question, someone asked what is your message to young men?
6:16 am
and i thought to myself, well, the message should be be careful, understand that this is a lifetime. even if you are 15 or 16 years old, the message was this is a dangerous time for you. and of these kinds of accusations can come, i have to say, in every case, basically came down, not every word, but the ultimate judgment was that he came down on the side of the accuser, men rather than women. >> martha: he said it was very interesting. i remember when i called it judge kavanaugh and talked about my wish to nominate him to the supreme court. he said he was so honored, and his family was so honored. he just recounted that moment. he said i hope we don't get to a point where a president call someone to tell them that they have been nominated to the supreme court and the person says no thanks. i watch the process. >> chris: that's not going to happen.
6:17 am
>> martha: i do think that this makes a lot of people think twice about whether they want t to. >> who would want to do this in light of this hearing? here is this distinguished judge, comes before this panel today, in which three members have already said that the burden of proof is on him. it not only that, so has their leader. chuck schumer. who would want to face that? plus the stuff that was coming out last night, all out of left field. we've got characters like michael avenatti. it taken seriously by democrats. who would want to do that? i must say, i can't imagine. and i think it's a very serious problem. the poison in our politics will unmistakably keep people from wanting to serve. >> bret: president trump speaks in a different way, but the thoughts about "guilty until proven innocent," that resonates in this country.
6:18 am
it really does. >> martha: it is the ultimate, you could say, and i he said-she said, that is about to play out. the stakes cannot be higher for this country and both sides. >> bret: brett kavanaugh and christina blasey ford will testify before the senate judiciary committee this morning. 45 minutes. the judge will join us next. >> i hope it's not like the confirmation hearing. i called it the "intergalactic freak show." and i meds heads. all of the protests, everyone talking over each other in a study with ozempic®, a majority of adults lowered their blood sugar and reached an a1c of less than seven and maintained it. oh! under seven? (vo) and you may lose weight. in the same one-year study, adults lost on average up to 12 pounds. oh! up to 12 pounds? (vo) a two-year study showed that ozempic® does not increase the risk of major cardiovascular events
6:19 am
like heart attack, stroke, or death. oh! no increased risk? ♪ ozempic®! ♪ ozempic® should not be the first medicine for treating diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not share needles or pens. don't reuse needles. do not take ozempic® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to ozempic®. stop taking ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, itching, rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis. tell your doctor if you have diabetic retinopathy or vision changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase the risk for low blood sugar. common side effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, and constipation. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. i discovered the potential with ozempic®. ♪ oh! oh! oh! ozempic®! ♪
6:20 am
(vo) ask your healthcare provider if ozempic® is right for you.
6:21 am
6:22 am
>> these last few days have been very trying, very hard for me. telling the world is the most difficult experience of my life. but it is very close to having to live through the experience that occasioned this meeting. >> this is a national disgrace. and from my standpoint, as a black american, as far as i'm concerned, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deemed to think for themselves. >> martha: fascinating to look back to 1991.
6:23 am
it is impossible to not look back to that as we prepare for what we are about to see if you are that of course was the process for supreme court justice clarence thomas. similar dues, to be sure, as it brett kavanaugh and christine blasey ford sit down, the same kind of experience, and some ways. judge golisano joins us now. good morning to you. your thoughts as we get ready to view this. >> my thoughts are that it has all of the earmarks of a witness proceeding, examination being taken, affidavits being read, it is really a political one. i profoundly challenge and a disagree with the statement that it is judge kavanaugh's job to prove his case. that there are no rules here. dr. ford does not have to prove the allegations, judge kavanaugh does not have to disprove them. there is not going to be a jury
6:24 am
determination. we will never know the truth. but we will have an impression at the end of the day by 5:00 or 6:00 today as to who is more credible. at dr. ford or judge kavanaugh. and that is essentially what this is about. because it is so political, that impression is aimed at just a half of a dozen people. maybe if you democrats running for reelection and states of the president carried, and they have said to chuck schumer which they are going to vote yet. >> bret: what do you think about this fbi discussion to go forward on this and other claim claims? that is their continual called that this should happen before this. >> i think it is a little bit late in the take for that now. president george w. bush did stop the clock and send the fbi to interrogate any to health and the witnesses to she sent them, and to interrogate judge
6:25 am
clarence thomas and the witnesses. and the fbi presented a report to the white house, which was given to the senator and then chair of the judiciary committe committee, and the great senator arlen specter used that to effectively demolish and under nine professor hill because she had said different things to the fbi than she had to the committee. i don't know that we are going to turn back the clock at this point. i think the president should have utilized the investigative tools of the fbi to continue the background check a few weeks ago. look, senator feinstein sat on this thing for two months. the clock ran out, then she revealed it. >> martha: judge, what about the role of rachel mitchell and all of this? it seems to me that at the end of it, when all is said and done, there is going to be a pretty distinct opinion about whether that was a good idea. >> i think you are right. but we don't know now if it was
6:26 am
a good idea. we know that she is a seasoned professional with 26 years as a prosecutor. ten of which i would say for sex primes in very high profile cases. we know that she knows how to ask questions. we know that she knows how to treat witnesses, with deference and respect, but not to be rolled over by them. it is a little bit unusual to see senators, particularly in the majority party, giving away their time on national television to a person they don't even know to ask questions. so i think this is either a colossal mistake or a brilliant move, but we won't know which it is until we see how it comes off. >> bret: and the democrats, obviously they are not going to pass off to a different question, they have a few prosecutors on their side. the senator from california,
6:27 am
kamala harris, but how this goes politically will be fascinating to watch. a big part of this day. >> they have two targets. they have their base out there, which wants them to you prevents this nomination from coming to pass, but they also have a few members of their own that they want to give a reason to vote against judge kavanaugh, and they have a few members on the other side of the republican party that they want to have a reason to vote against it. we are hearing that the democrats are going to be very aggressive. they are going to utilize the documents submitted by michael avenatti yesterday, even though the preparer of those documents is not in the room. we also heard that they very well may play clips and to then to play -- it demonstrates it through other means. contradictions of what he told martha.
6:28 am
so i think that they are going to be very aggressive with him in about an hour. >> martha: judge, thank you very much. >> bret: we are just minutes away from a historic hearing. a live look inside the hearing room on capitol hill. the senate judiciary committee, that room inside inside the din office building is where this will all go down. dr. wanted a smaller venue with one camera. that is what the committee has provided now. and this is the view that you will get here there likely will not be a lot of people in there. we will not see the same uproar that we did on the last hearing, but it will be intense. more when we come back.
6:29 am
♪ ignition sequence starts. 10... 9... guidance is internal. 6... 5... 4... 3... 2... 1... ♪ call to see if you qualify to enroll in a medicare advantage plan right now. at humana, we believe great things are ahead of you when you start with healthy. and part of staying healthy means choosing the right medicare plan. humana can help. with original medicare, you're covered for hospital stays and doctor office visits when you're sick. but keep in mind you'll have to pay a deductible for each. a medicare supplement plan can cover your deductibles and
6:30 am
co-insurance, but you may pay higher premiums than you do with other plans. and prescription drug coverage isn't included. but, with an all-in-one humana medicare advantage plan, you could get all that coverage plus part d prescription drug benefits. all for an affordable monthly plan premium, and in some areas, no plan premium. it's all described in this free book. call for yours, and discover how an all-in-one medicare advantage plan from humana could save you money. there is no obligation and the book is free. call or go online right now.
6:31 am
6:32 am
nothing says fall like a homecoming football game, so let's promote our fall travel deal on choicehotels.com like this. touchdown. earn a free night when you stay just twice this fall. or, badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com >> brett kavanaugh is looking for a seat on the supreme court, that he will have for the rest of his life. if he's going to have that seat legitimately, all of these things that should be investigated because from what i experience, i don't think he belongs on the supreme court. and i just want the facts to
6:33 am
come out. and i want it to be just, and i want the american people to how those facts and a judge for themselves. >> bret: that is julie swetnick. she is the latest accuser. she was the victim of gang rape, that which brett kavanaugh was attending at the time of the alleged gang rape. and this is the accuser, who is represented by attorney michael avenatti. >> martha: that is the first we have heard of her and seen her speak or elaborate at all on the charges that she has brought forward. and really, this particular hearing is not really supposed to include any of this. so i think it is going to be really interesting if most likely democrats start asking brett kavanaugh about these charges of gang rape and the like. when i did interview him, we did not have a name associated. we did ask about that charge. i think we have a sound bite we
6:34 am
can play his response. he was probably the most angry and animated during the interview. watch this. >> that's totally false and outrageous. i have never done any such thing or known about any such thing. when i was in high school, and i went to an all boys catholic high school, i was focused on academics and athletics, going to church every sunday a little flour. working on my service projects, and friendship. friendship with my fellow classmates and friendship with rose from the local all-girls catholic schools. >> bret: so the question is where is this all going? let's bring back our panel. shannon, this particular story seems to have galvanized people, saying what is going on here. a >> shannon: as he saw, when you put it to him, it seems so over-the-top that would there not be police reports if everybody knew in the community? they put together a letter
6:35 am
yesterday, they said certainly we would never have attended parties where there were gang rapes happening, and continue going to these. >> bret: she said that she went to ten of them. >> shannon: she outlined her gang rape as being then, so would you continue going to parties in 1983 if you had been the subject of this? i used to be a sexual harassment attorney. i was not doing criminal cases like this, but i found that there were stories, plenty of false claims. i saw legitimate claims. and we have to find out today, there is really an audience of one or two senators who we are going to be watching to see how this turns out. you mentioned rachel mitchell, who will be asking questions. it talked to a defense attorney last night who has not cases across the courtroom from her for years. she said she is on the opposite side of these issues, but she is methodical and fair. this may not be as exciting as people think it will be. you may not have your pairing
6:36 am
mason-google it -- moment. or "you can't handle the truth." she is going to be very methodical, as any prosecutor would be. it may take some time to get to the answers that people really want. >> martha: let's bring in crystal world and mollie hemingway. in terms of that whole issue alone, that is not supposed to be a part of this hearing, and i wonder what is going to happen if they start pressing him on the details of this unsubstantiated claim by this one woman. the only details in her story are details that were already out there in these other allegations, so how are the democrats going to play this? are they going to go further than just the issue at hand? >> chris: it will be hugely important to how -- to whether or not it is perceived as being a fair hearing, perceptions matter here more than anything else because just as it shannon bream was pointing out, this is not going to come to some
6:37 am
dramatic conclusion. now we all know the truth and it has been revealed. that is probably not what we're looking at. what we are looking at is it perceived as being fair? is it perceived as being thorough and unbiased? and that is a lot of pressure on democrats, who we saw in the first round of the hearings, their stuff will not work today. >> bret: in this particular story, the new yorker went with the story. they interviewed dozens of people who could not corroborate the story. this is one now of several stories that fits that scenario. >> i think this is a test of how foolish people are, whether they are believing not just unsubstantiated stories, but downright farcical stories. the question is whether it is even appropriate that you can bring forward an allegation that has no contemporary substantiation that can even be outlandish to the point that you would have to be quite foolish to believe that it was possible. you can use it to derail a nomination hearing for a very
6:38 am
long time. and i feel like the media are acting very much like oh, there are these growing numbers of allegations, without pointing out that each subsequent allegation is getting more ridiculous than the first one. the first one was already, it was possible, but it has no supporting evidence to make it where it would really be a fair thing to talk about 35 years after the fact. >> martha: you have talked a lot about this, in regard to the press, with the way that we have handled this. because for a while, it was just christine blasey ford. everyone said usually with these types of situations, there is a whole trail of events that gives everyone a feeling about what this person's life is like. whether or not they could have done these things. and then there started to be the trickle. people jumped on it and reported on it, they were substantiated. >> bret: there was one last night which was recanted by the accuser, who said that they made a terrible mistake.
6:39 am
and it ended up on people's twitter feeds, cnn left it up. i think saying there has been a deterioration of standards and the story is not sufficient. there has been a demolition -- we are having the word "corroboration" tossed around. indication of blasey ford. at the white house correspondent was talking at that it had been corroborated. it turns out it was simply her having told people at the same time that she told her therapist. at the same story, that corroborates nothing. and this is where we are. i think it has been a dark moment for our business. >> bret: 2 out of 3 people who are dealing with assaults don't come forward. you have to take this sensitively, we are in a different environment now.
6:40 am
you have an anonymous letter, not signed, no address, and that went out to the media like it was another legitimate accuser. >> i think that there are these questions now, these accusations that have not been investigated by the committee or the fbi. so the question for me is tomorrow morning at 9:30 a.m., will the committee go ahead and vote? there are all of these outstanding questions about accusations. they may not be true, but they have not been fully looked at. >> any kind of anonymous unspecific allegation can can be thrown into the mix here, and an investigation -- >> marie: but if you claim and believe that you are completely innocent, wouldn't you want an investigation to clear your name? >> brit: it is not about what i think. it is about what you just said. also uncorroborated, there
6:41 am
should now be an investigation. >> marie: i think we should take the time. >> bret: what do you think senator feinstein was thinking when she sat on the letter in july? >> marie: , i don't know, but it was a very bad mistake. >> it is -- we're talking about a man, a coordinated smear campaign to derail not just the nomination but this man's life, honor, reputation, people should be thinking whether or not this is -- it is a very sad and angry moment to the people who should know better for participating in this. >> martha: all right, we are going to take a quick break here. senators are beginning to arrive at the office building on the capitol hill. we are waiting on dr. ford and a judge kavanaugh who no doubt are on some pins and needles this morning as they had to what today brings. start the countdown at the start of this hearing, which will take
6:42 am
place at the top of the hour. quick break and we will be right back. self-employed and without employer benefits. we haven't had any sort of benefit plans and we're trying to figure that out now. if i had had a little advice back then, i'd be in a different boat today, for sure. plan your financial life with prudential. bring your challenges.
6:43 am
6:44 am
6:45 am
6:46 am
>> martha: we are back. we are having a lot of animated conversation. during the break, obviously people have very strong feelings about the entire issue. one of the biggest stories with all of this is whether or not there should be continuing investigations. we are definitely going to hear from chris wallace about this. no doubt, they are going to push for that. >> i tended to think it is important to distinguish between what is important and serious and what clearly seems less so. over the course of this week, like a lot of american families, my family, a lot of it via email, has been discussing this and a disagreeing and arguing. and to have my daughters have told me stories that i had never heard before about things that happen to them in high school. and i don't know if they told their friends. they certainly never reported to police. they weren't as serious as the
6:47 am
allegations against cavanagh, but the point is that there are teenage girls who don't tell stories to a lot of people, and then it comes out. i don't think that we can disregard that. i don't think that we can disregard christine blasey ford. i think that would be a big mistake. excuse me. >> bret: real quick it, we are going to listen. >> dr. ford, that somehow we solve this dilemma for you. i don't believe that. i don't trust that coming out of the ether here. so i think that's would be an insult to her. >> thank you, senator . >> peter doocy walking with senator graham. obviously, he is frustrated. about the timing of this, where it is all going. >> christine blasey ford, she
6:48 am
did everything right. she submitted the letter to her local congresswoman before kavanaugh was even appointed, before he was nominated by the president. basically saying before you go down this road, i want to put out this information. i have no doubt in my mind that she believes this happen. i don't know that it did happen, but she believes it did happen. take a look at the julie swetnick story, the latest story about the gang rape. why wouldn't you say that's maybe after three or four banks vias, i think that is enough. these parties aren't working for me. you go out of your way to find a lawyer less credible to represent to you some heartfelt thing, to go to michael avenatti to represent you and make your case, you can understand where people would treat that this wa way. >> martha: why wouldn't you go directly to the police? there is no statute of limitations in maryland on rape. so i can't imagine how you could
6:49 am
handle this in a way that puts less weight on the actual magnitude of that allegation. >> bret: not just from republicans but from average folks who look at this and say why is it happening one day before the hearing? why is it happening in the last days after this is all done? we will listen to senator blumenthal, who was talking right now. >> very believable, credible allegations. >> have you given any time over to this email? >> i know none of my colleagues were going to see any time. we are elected to do this job, regardless of who the witnesses are, what the topic is, we are the ones who vote. we ought to be asking the questions. any of my colleagues, who hide behind a special prosecutor really are failing in their constitutional duties. >> your democratic female colleagues --
6:50 am
>> the people of connecticut elected me to do my job. i am not giving time to anyone. in fact, i'm going to be asking for more time if anything, because 5 minutes is totally inadequate to ask the kinds of questions. going to issues relating to excessive drinking, sexual assault, and other issue that are very important. to establish credibility. >> senator , questions about te judges sex life or drinking habits fair game today? >> anything that bears on credibility. including sexual assault, personal relationships, drinking, past records, they are all fair game. >> thank you, senator . >> bret: senator blumenthal from connecticut was talking about how there is skepticism about all of the timing of this.
6:51 am
when it comes out. you know, christine blasey ford said that she wanted to be anonymous. before it was linked, she hired an attorney, took a polygraph, obviously thought that maybe she was going to be coming out at s. you don't do that unless you believe that you're going to be public. i believe that this is just the skepticism. this is all orchestrated. >> >> marie: i think there is skepticism on both sides. i hear it from my independent female friends who say it feels like republicans are trying to do this bucks tracking exercise, when you hear lindsey graham saying that this is not credible, he hasn't even heard from them yet. there is some skepticism on both sides. this is not a court of law, it is a court of public opinion, there are politics. when i think democrats do believe, and i hate to bring politics into it, but this issue could be a winner for them come november. republicans could be overplaying
6:52 am
their hands. they may not be taking these accusations seriously. so the skepticism about this is rampant. i think what happens in the next five or six hours will tell us about how this process will play out, and whether there will be about tomorrow, or whether the process will go on longer. >> this goes forward, kavanaugh gets there at the end gets confirmed, the democrats have won and a number of ways. they have gotten a number of members up for reelection. and this is a tough about. voting no on this is easier because of this. so of course, it all gets pushed later. it is better for them because they don't have to cast a vote at all. somehow it gets pushed past. so they went back on that count. they also satisfy voters in their parties who are in a rage about donald trump. this is further resistance to donald trump. so they get points for that. they have got some ways to win
6:53 am
politically, even if they lose on the outcome of the nomination. republicans come on the other hand, are in a somewhat different position. if they lose on this nomination, it could be argued. we talked about it earlier, that they will be fired up for november. there will be so many disappointed republicans if they don't get this through that a lot of people will stay home and discussed. >> bret: rush limbaugh so the other day that if he is not voted on, put on the supreme court, there is just going to be immense disappointment, and they are not going to show up to the polls. your opinion? >> it depends on how. it depends on timing. this is a binary in this way that kavanaugh confirmed is good, kavanaugh taken down, defeated, that that's is good for democrats, i don't think that matters. this is also true for the #metoo movement. we have been here for a long
6:54 am
time. this is a test moment for this, that is going to decide what direction this is going. it is going to decide the credibility of this. and i would hope that these democratic senators who were this. i heard him with a real blood lust, he wanted to go get kavanaugh. you can hear them gearing up for this. if it turns into this moment, they put him up there, abuse him, rough him up, it will not do wonders for the #metoo movement. >> bret: he has his own credibility. >> martha: quite revealing in the scope of the questioning. he is basically going to call it every single thing that he did in high school, grill him on it. let's bring in his stake, as we want to rachel mitchell, who has entered the room. she is sitting there getting ready to begin the questioning. mike. >> martha, good morning to you. i can tell you outside the hearing room, security is much tighter than we saw during the
6:55 am
original kavanaugh hearings. it is clear that they are trying to avoid some of the shenanigans that we saw in terms of protesters getting carried out, yelling, trying to make us more low-key, more businesslike, more direct. we started with opening statements from senator senator grassley. they have been at odds over much of the kavanaugh nomination appeared very tense between the two of them. christine blasey ford will get up there. we expect her to get up there, she does not remember all of the details of what happened that night back in 1982 or so, but the details that she does remember or what have brought her to this moment. ben kavanaugh will go second. he will get a moment to listen to her from outside the room. and he will have a moment to respond. democrats tended to do their own questioning. democrats are complaining about that is not enough time. republicans have brought in the outside a prosecutor from the phoenix area. we saw her walk by a short time ago, she did not make any comments. she will do her talking inside
6:56 am
the hearing room, but we expect that obviously the stakes are much higher this time around, but all indications are that security will be extremely tight to try to let professor forward and then judge kavanaugh say what they need to say to the 21 members of the judiciary committee. martha. >> bret: we just want to be clear. there are no open seats for anybody? could protesters get into the smaller room? is a totally closed down? >> brett, i've got to tell you, i've seen protesters in the building, but when we get off the floor, they have been checking ids very carefully. it could one have gone through? maybe. but it really seems like they're trying to keep the protesters on other floors so as not to fluster professor ford or judge kavanaugh with the stakes are so incredibly high. >> martha: we saw some of those around lindsey graham, holding up signs that say "i believe christine blasey ford," it really can't be
6:57 am
misunderestimated what the moment this is for the #metoo movement, the question of whether or not you were supposed to indiscriminately believe every single woman who makes a charge or not. whether or not the person who is accused, in this case, brett kavanaugh, is innocent until proven guilty. i think this amount will be reflected upon in regard to that question. >> pat leahy from vermont speaking there. the senator has been very outspoken about this, chris. though women should be believed, and the benefit of the doubt should not go to brett kavanaugh. >> kristen gillibrand, there have been some women who have not been interested in due process. they are basically saying she says it, i believe it. two women that i have to say i am thinking about right now, one is rachel mitchell. she has done this for a long time, and i'm sure that some people wonder why would you have a sex crimes prosecutor
6:58 am
interrogating a woman? because the prosecutor needs to really examine a woman's case and it to make sure it stands up under tough questioning if you are going to take that case trial against a man who allegedly assaulted her. so she is used to dealing with women who have made charges. and then christine blasey ford, everybody else has been on a stage at some point in their career, even in the case of rachel mitchell, in a courtroom. you have got christine blasey ford, who is the most private of private people, and suddenly, she is going to be thrust on the stage with the country watching. much of the world watching. that is a tough moment. i know that she has volunteered for it in the end, but that is going to be a moment of tremendous personal human drama. >> we just saw jeff flake walking in. he is someone that we have been looking at. it is notable to point out that even if the committee votes tomorrow at 9:30, but it is
6:59 am
not -- that the nomination could go forward, even if the committee votes no recommendation. with judge clarence thomas, the committee did not vote to recommend him, and yet he got approved on the floor. the problem for republicans is that they can't lose any votes because it is just so narrow. they can lose one vote. if they lose two, where they don't pick up joe manchin or some other democrat, this goes down. >> martha: so if they should make no recommendation on this, 11 republican senators. there is a majority on this committee. again, that is just the very first step of this vote. if it would take i think about five days, they asked me, to actually have it. so it is not as if the vote is going to happen tomorrow. it judge kavanaugh would become just as kavanaugh at the end of tomorrow. that is not going to happen. that is at least a week away. >> bret: final thoughts as we get started here. we seem as much older. some people speculating from
7:00 am
arizona in front of jeff flake there to say hey, here is your prosecutor from arizona to do this questioning. >> some of those who recommended her, one of the issues of course, appearances. republicans didn't want to appear, as you have heard the phrase, the older white guys questioning this a victim of assault. and now they are claiming the republicans are not taking the seriously. i think the response on the republican side is what could be more serious than inviting a professional sex crimes prosecutor to do the questionin questioning. it gets them out from under the claim that it is a bunch of white guys. this is a woman during the questioning. it demonstrates about as clearly as anything how much this is all about appearances. all about appearances. >> bret: i think we are about ready to go in. >> timing is an issue. we are seeing that this is kind
7:01 am
of a coordinated campaign. as long as democrats allow this to continue, we will probably get more and more. i think the country would like to see an end to this, one way or another. it is also unfair to brett kavanaugh to have us continue on indefinitely. so it will be important for people to hear what they do today, make a decision, understand that we do have standards of evidence, for destroying someone's life, and if those standards aren't met, i think it is important that we uphold the standards so that we can be together as a country, whether you are left or right. we do believe in the presumption of innocence, and that people make their case. it we are told that the best case for christine blasey ford, her case is not so great, she doesn't know what year or a location or how it happened. she doesn't have any corroborating witnesses at the time. the four when it says she gave said that they don't know what she is talking about. the idea that you would destroy a man's life, ruin his relationship with his wife, daughters, ruin his job, when
7:02 am
you don't have anything more than this, i think it will be really interesting how much more can christine blasey ford say? she has to do so much more than what we have gotten thus far in these very friendly stories that she has gotten in major media. that is important for anyone, that you can be accused of a crime, you should not have your life destroyed without about it being shown through evidence. >> martha: i think another important thing to remember, one of the most important audiences, other than the senators who are going to vote, obviously susan collins, but the other really important if you are today trump. yesterday, at that news conference, opens the door to think perhaps that's if you saw something that didn't add up here, that he might change his mind. he hopes that this will go through, and you felt that he had to say that, but he did open the door at least a little bit. he was supposed to talk to rod rosenstein today. he said i'm going to put that
7:03 am
off, i have got something very important to do tomorrow. so how judge kavanaugh points out, a lot of people thought that he was too stiff and our interview, how while he holds out. >> bret: judge napolitano, that is interesting, because we have also heard anecdotally that the president wasn't happy with his interview with martha. >> as i said to martha, your questions were far better than his answers. his answers were very rude. i think he has been advised don't open the door on this, on that. martha asked why do you think they're coming after this? he knows why, but he did not want to open up that can of worms. i don't think he can be that way today. he must show the righteous indignation that judge clarence thomas showed. i agree with everything mollie hemingway just said, but i don't
7:04 am
expect to see much fairness or due process hearing. i think the democrats are going to go for the jugular. all they want to do is win. they don't care. >> martha: we are getting our first look at dr. blasey ford. we have only really seen one or two pictures of her in the past. one is from when she was 15, the other is with the sunglasses. obviously a big moment for her. she is sitting with her attorney, her heart has got to be pounding out of her chest at this moment. >> bret: think about this moment. where we are in context. it could not be a bigger stage. >> shannon: when you have a sick seat on the supreme court hanging in the balance, the stakes cannot be higher. that gives them 30 or 40 years. they may lose a couple of elections, but for them, it is a calculation that may be worth the risk. >> you saw somebody pat her on
7:05 am
the shoulder. i am sure this is a very frightening moment for her. and she's got to be wondering at this moment how did this happen? how did i end up here? >> >> bret: let's listen in. chuck grassley. >> good morning. we continue our hearing on the nomination of judge brett kavanaugh to serve as associate judges on our supreme court. we will hear from two witnesses, dr. christine blasey ford and judge kavanaugh. thanks of course to dr. ford and judge kavanaugh for expecting our committee's 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
7:06 am
weeks. are they and their families have received vile threats. what they have endured ought to be considered by all of us as unacceptable and a poor reflection on the state of civility in our democracy. so i want to apologize to you both for the way you've been treated, and i intend hopefully for today's hearing, to be safe, comfortable, and a dignified for both of our witnesses. i hope my colleagues will join me in this effort of a show of civility. with that said, i laments that this hearing, how this hearing has come about. on july 9th 2018, the president announced judge kavanaugh's
7:07 am
nomination to serve on the supreme court. judge kavanaugh has served on the most important federal appellate court for 12 years. before that, he held some of the most sensitive positions in the federal government. the president added judge kavanaugh to his short list of supreme court more than nine months ago in november november 2017. as part of judge kavanaugh's nomination to the supreme court, the fbi conducted its six full field of background investigations of judge kavanaugh since 1993, 25 years ago. nowhere in any of these six fbi reports, which committee investigators have reviewed on a bipartisan basis, was there with of any issue.
7:08 am
any issue at all, related in any way to inappropriate sexual behavior. ms. ford first raised her allegations in a secret letter two months ago. this letter was secret from jul, july 30th -- september 15, when i first heard about it. the ranking member took no action. the letter wasn't shared with me your colleagues or my staff. these allegations could have been investigated in a way that maintains the confidentiality that dr. ford requested. before his hearing, judge kavanaugh met privately with 65 senators, including the ranking member. but the ranking member he didn't
7:09 am
ask judge kavanaugh about the allegations when she met with him privately in august. the senate judiciary committee held her there for a from september 4th to september 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. it judge kavanaugh answered nearly 1300 written questions submitted by senators after the hearing. more than all prior nominees. throughout this period, we did not know about the ranking members of secret evidence. then, only at the 11th hour, on the evening of his confirmation board, did the ranking member refer the allegations to the fb fbi. and then, sadly, the allegations were linked to the press.
7:10 am
that is where dr. ford was mistreated. this is a shamble way to treat our witness, who insisted on confidentiality. and of course, judge kavanaugh, who has had to address these allegations, in the midst of a media circus. when i received dr. ford letter on september the 13th, my staff and i recognized the seriousness of these allegations and immediately began our committee's investigation with the way the committee has handled such allegations in the past. every step of the way it, the democratic side refused to participate and what should have been a bipartisan investigation. as far as i know on all of our judgeships throughout at least the last four years or three years, that has been the way it has been handled. after dr. ford's identity became
7:11 am
public, my staff contacted all the individuals she said i attended the 1982 party described in "the washington post" article. it judge kavanaugh immediately you submitted it to an interview under penalty for any knowingly false statements. he denied the allegations categorically. democratic staff was participating, and could have asked any questions that they wanted 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 process and procedure is what the committee always does when we receive allegations of wrongdoing. my staff reached out to other individuals allegedly at the party, judge patrick smith, leland kaiser, all three submitted statements to the senate under penalty of felony,
7:12 am
denying any knowledge of the events described by dr. ford. dr. ford's lifelong friend stated that she doesn't know judge kavanaugh and it doesn't recall ever attending a party with him. my staff made repeated requests to dr. ford it during the 11 days. taking testimony. presenting allegations to congress. i nevertheless honored 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 committee was able to conduct thorough investigations into allegations. thorough investigations into allegations. some of my colleagues stated their desires to obstruct
7:13 am
kavanaugh's nomination by any means necessary. fbi investigations into the allegations. but i have no authority to force edge. moreover, once the allegations became public, it was easy to identify all of the alleged witnesses and conduct our own investigations. contrary to what the public has been led to believe, the fbi does not perform credibility assessments or verify the truth of any of the events in these background investigations. the chairman, joe biden, during justice thomas' confirmation hearing, this is what the senator said. "the next person who refers to an fbi report as being worth
7:14 am
anything obviously doesn't understand anything. the fbi explicitly does not in this or any other case reach a conclusion, period. they say he said, she said, they said. so when people waive an fbi report for you, understand they do not. they do not. they do not reach conclusions. they do not make recommendation recommendations. the fbi then 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 a fair and respectful hearing. that is what we promised dr. ford. some of my colleagues have complained about the fact that an expert on this side is
7:15 am
investigating sex crimes will be questioning the witness. i see no basis for complaint, other than just plain politics. the testimony we will hear today concerns allegations of sexual assault. a very serious allegations. this is an incredibly complex and sensitive subject to discuss, and is not an easy one to discuss. that is why the senators on the side of the dice and believe an expert who has deep experience and training in interviewing victims of sexual assault and investigating a sexual assault allegations should be asking questions. this will be in stark contrast to the grandstanding and 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. ms. mitchell is a career
7:16 am
prosecutor, civil servant, with decades of experience, investigating sex crimes. she is dedicated to seeking justice for survivors of these crimes. she was a division chief in the attorney's office, which it prosecutes sex crimes and family violence. then democratic senator senator napolitano, we previously recognize her as the outstanding arizona sexual assault prosecutor. and she has spent years instructing prosecutors and a child protection workers on how to properly interview victims of sexual assault and abuse. i look forward to a productive hearing. i understand that there are two other public allegations. at today's hearing was scheduled
7:17 am
to -- 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 cooperation from attorneys representing other clients. they have made no attempt to substantiate their claims. she has tried to secure testimony from these attorneys from deborah ramirez and julie swetnick. my staff made eight requests. it yes, request for evidence from attorneys from miss ramire miss ramirez. and six requests for evidence from a miss julie swetnick. neither attorney has made their clients available for interviews. the committee can't do an investigation if they are stonewalling.
7:18 am
i hope you will understand that we have attempted to seek additional information as we do when there are holes in what we call the bi reports. the witnesses should know, when i say all the witnesses, i mean dr. ford, and i mean judge kavanaugh, all the witnesses should know that they have the right, under senate rule 26.5, asking the committee going to a closed session, if the question requires an answer that is a clear invasion of their right to privacy, dr. ford or judge kavanaugh, if they feel that senate rule 26.5 ought to be involved, they should simply say so. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. let me just make a brief comment on your references to me.
7:19 am
yes, i did receive a letter from dr. ford. it was conveyed to me by a member of congress on issue. at the next day, i called dr. ford, we spoke on the phone. she reiterated that she wanted it to be held confidential, and i held it confidential up to a point where the witness was willing to come forward. and i think that if i make my remarks, perhaps you will see why. 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 in a minute. 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
7:20 am
it's important to do this to make sure you are properly introduced. >> i was going to introduce her, but i want you to know that i didn't forget to do it. i would do that just as she was about to speak. >> thank you. >> i have to say that's when i saw your cv, i was extremely impressed. you have a bachelor's degree from the university of north carolina chapel hill, two masters degrees, one from stanford, and one from pepperdine, and a phd from the university of the southern california, better known to senator harris, as at usc. you are 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 were not enough, you are a wife, a mother of two
7:21 am
sons, and constituents from california. so i am very grateful to you for your strength 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's estimated by the centers 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 research, when survivors do report their assaults, it is often years later, due to the trauma that
7:22 am
they suffered, and fearing that their stories will not be believed. at last week it, i believed a letter from a 60-year-old california constituent who told me that she survived and attempd a rape at age 17 and appeared se described as being terrified and embarrassed. she never told a soul on till much later in life. the assault stayed with her for ready three years. i think it's important to remember these realities as we hear from dr. ford about her experience. there has been a great deal of public discussion about the fee 16 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 come under assault. in essence, they are put on
7:23 am
trial, and forced to defend themselves. and often re-victimized 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 it to tell her story of being assaulted and fearing for her life when she was a teenager. initially it, as i said, dr. dr. ford did not want to make
7:24 am
her story public. 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 the 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 up 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. however, despite repeated requests, president trump and the republicans have refused to
7:25 am
take this routine step and it direct to the fbi to conduct an impartial investigation. this would clearly be the best way to ensure a fair process to both judge kavanaugh and to dr. ford. in 1991, the senate heard from 22 witnesses over three days. today, while rejecting an fbi investigation, republicans are refusing to hear testimony from any other witness. including mark judge, who dr. ford identified as it being in the room when the attack took place. and we believe the judgment shd be subpoenaed to so that the committee can hear from him directly. republicans have also refused to call forward anyone who could speak to the evidence that would support or refute dr. ford's
7:26 am
claim. it and not one witness who could address credibility and character of either ford or kavanaugh has been called. what i find most inexcusable is this a rush to judgment. the unwillingness to take these kinds of allegations at face value and look at them for what they are. the real question of character for someone who is asking for a lifetime appointment on the supreme court. in 1991, republicans belittled professor hills experience, 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 hick up.
7:27 am
it dr. ford is mixed up, and it declaring "i'll listen to the 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 centage will plow right through and ensure judge kavanaugh would be elevated within a week. in fact, on tuesday, the majority went ahead and schedule to vote on the nomination before we heard one word of testimony, regarding allegations of sexual assault and misconduct by brett 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, tumor women have come forward with their own serious allegations of
7:28 am
sexual assault including brett kavanaugh. this past sunday, we learned about debbie ramirez, who was a student at heel 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 kavanaugh 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 experienced being at house parties with brett kavanaugh and mark judge. she recounted seeing kavanaugh engage in "abusive and a physically aggressive behavior towards girls." including attempts to "remove or shift girls clothing." not taking "no" for an answer.
7:29 am
having a girls "without their consent." targeting particular girls so that they could be taken advantage of." 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 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
7:30 am
projects, and going to church. he declared that he "never drank so much he couldn't remember what happened, and he has always treated women with dignity and respect." and while he has made these declarations, more and more people have come forward, challenging his characterization of events and behaviors. james roach, his freshman roommate at yale, stated kavanaugh was "frequently incoherently drunk." and that's was when he "became aggressive and it blue to belligerent." a friend of his says "there is no medical way i can say that he was blacked out, but it's not credible for him to say that he has no memory lapses in the
7:31 am
nights that he drank to excess." lynn brooks, a college classmate said "the picture kavanaugh is trying to paint it doesn't match her memories of him." and i quote, "he's trying to paint himself as some kind of choir boy. you can't lie your way onto the supreme court," and with that statement, he has gone too far. it is about the integrity of the institution." ultimately, members and ladies and gentlemen, i really think that's the point. we are here to decide whether to evaluate this nominee to the most prestigious courts in our country. it's 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
7:32 am
their tactics, opens their minds, and seriously reflects on why we are here. we are here for one reason, to determine whether judge kavanaugh should be elevated to one of the most powerful positions in our country. this is not a trial of dr. ford. it is a job interview for judge kavanaugh. is brett kavanaugh who we want on the most prestigious court in our country? is he the best we can do? thank you, mr. chairman. >> i'm sorry you brought up about the unsubstantiated allegations of those other people. we are here for the sole purpose of listening to dr. ford and will consider other issues other times. i would like to have you rise so i can swear you.
7:33 am
now, do you swear that the testimony you are about to give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god? thank you very much. please be seated. before you give your statement, i want to say to everybody that she has asked, any time you ask for a break, you get a break. anytime there is something that you need you don't have, 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 is any issues. proceed please. >> thank you, senator grassley. i think after i read my opening statement, may be some caffeine, if that is available. >> can you pull that microphone
7:34 am
just a little bit closer to you please. >> okay. >> can the whole box go a little bit -- okay. >> i will lean forward. >> thank you. >> okay. is this good? >> yet. >> okay. thank you, chairman grassley, and ranking member feinstein. members of the committee, my name is christine blasey ford. i am a professor of psychology at palo alto university and a research psychologist at the standford university of medicine. i won't detail my education background since it has already been summarized. i have been married to russell ford since 2002. we have two children. i am here now today not because i want to be. i am terrified. i am here because i believe it is my's every duty to tell you what happened to me it while it brett kavanaugh and i were at high school. i have described the events
7:35 am
publicly before. i have summarized them in my letter to ranking member feinstein and again to chairman grassley. i understand and appreciate the appearance importance of it you are hearing from me directly and the impact that this has had on my life and on my family. i grew up in the suburbs of washington, d.c. i attended the school and bethesda, maryland, from 1978- 1978-1984. it is an all girls at school that opened in 18 oh one. during my time at the school, girls are frequently met and became friendly with all boys schools, including georgetown prep. as well as country clubs and other places where family socialized. this is how i met brett kavanaugh, the boy who sexually
7:36 am
assaulted me. during my freshman and sophomore school years, when i was 14-15 years old, my group of friends intercepted with brett and his friends for a short period of time. i had been friendly with the classmates of brett for every time during my freshman and sophomore year. it was through that connection 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 almost every day at the columbia country club in chevy chase maryland, swimming and practicing diving. one evening that summer, after a day of diving at the club, i attended a small gathering at a house in that area. there were four boys i remember specifically being at the house. brett kavanaugh, mark judge, a
7:37 am
boy named pj, and one other boy who i 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, it was almost surely a spur of the moment gathering. i truly remember i could be 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 are 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 and a small living room/family room type of area on the first floor of the house. i drink one beer.
7:38 am
brett and mark were visibly drunk. early in the evening, i went up a very narrow set of stairs, leading from the living room to a second floor to use the restroom. 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 mark came into the bedroom and locked the door behind them. there was music playing in the bedroom. it was turned up letter by either brett or mark once we were in the room. i was pushed onto the bed, and brett got on top of me. he began running his hands over my body and grinding into me. i yelled, hoping that someone downstairs might hear me, and i try to get away from him, but his weight was heavy.
7:39 am
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 underneath my clothing. i believed he was going to rape me. i tried to yell for help. when i did, brett put his hand over my mouth to stop me from yelling. this is what terrified me the most, and it's had the most lasting impact on my life. it was hard for me to breathe, and i thought that brett was accidentally going to kill me. both rhett and mark were drunkenly laughing during the attack. they seemed to be having a very good time. marcus seemed ambivalent at times, urging brett on. at times telling him to stop it. a couple of times, i made eye contact with mark and thought he might try to help me. but he did not.
7:40 am
during this assault, mark came over and jumped on the bed twice while brett was on top of me. and 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. a small bathroom. i ran inside the bathroom and locked the door. i waited until i heard brett and mark leave the bathroom, laughing, and loudly walk down that narrow stairway, pin bowling off the stairs on their way down. i waited, and when i did not hear them, i left the bathroom, went down the same stairwell, through the living room, and left the house. i remember being on the street and feeling an enormous sense of relief that i had escaped the house, and that brett and mark were not coming outside after m
7:41 am
me. brett's assault on 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 parents that i at age 15 was in a house without any parents present, drinking beer with boys. i convinced myself that because brett did not rape me, i should just move on, just pretend that it didn't happen. over the years, i told a very, 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 never told the details to anyone, is the specific details on till may 2012 during a couples counseling session. the reason this came up in counseling is not my husband and i had completed a very
7:42 am
extensive, very long remodel of our home, and i insisted on a second front door. an idea that he and others disagreed with and could not understand. in explaining why i wanted a second front door, i began to describe the assault in detail. i recall saying about the boy who assaulted me could someday be on the u.s. supreme court and spoke a bit about his background at an elitist all boys school in bethesda, maryland. my husband recalls 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 caused me to relive the experience and cause panic and anxiety. occasionally, i would discuss the assault and individual
7:43 am
therapy sessions, but talking about it because more reliving of the trauma, so i tried not to think about it or discuss it. but over the years, i went through periods where i thought about the attack. i had confided in some close friends that i had had an experience with sexual assault. occasionally, i stated that my assailant was a prominent lawyer or judge, but i did not use his name. i do not recall each person i spoke to about brett's assault, and some of those friends have reminded me of these conversations since the publication of "the washington post" story on september 16th 2018. but until july 2018, i i had nr named mr. kavanaugh as my attacker outside of therapy. this changed in early july 2018. i saw press reports stating that brett kavanaugh was on the short-list of a list of very well-qualified supreme court
7:44 am
nominees. i thought it was my civic duty to give my information about the conduct so that those considering the nomination would know about this assault. on july 6, there was a sense of urgency to relay the information as soon as possible before a nominee was selected. i did not know how specifically to do this. i called my congressional representative and let her receptionist now that someone on the president short-list had attacked me. i also sent a message to the encrypted "washington post" tip line. i provided the names of brett kavanaugh and mark judge. 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
7:45 am
couldn't not do it. over the next two days, i told a couple of close friends on the beach in california that mr. kavanaugh had a sexually assaulted me. i was very conflicted as to whether to speak out. on july 9th, i received a return phone call from the office of the congresswoman, after mr. kavanaugh had become the nominee. i met with her staff on july 18th, and with her on july july 20th, describing the assault, and discussing my fears about coming forward. later, we discussed the possibility of sending a letter to ranking member feinstein, who is one of my state senators, describing what occurred. my understanding is that representative, or office delivered a copy of my letter to feinstein's office. the letter included my name, but
7:46 am
also request that it be kept confidential. my hope was that providing the information confidentially would be enough for the senate to consider the serious misconduct without having to make myself, my family, or any woman's family vulnerable to the personal attacks and invasions of privacy that we have seen since my information became public. and a letter dated august 31st, senator feinstein wrote that 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 experience is made public. as the hearing date got closer, i struggled with a terrible choice. do i share the facts and it puts my family in the spotlight?
7:47 am
or do i preserve our privacy and allow the senate to make its decision without knowing the full truth of his past behaviors? i agonized daily about this decision throughout august and september 2018. the sense of duty that originally motivated me to reach out confidentially to "the washington post" and it to's office, when there was still a list of extremely qualified candidates, and senator feinstein was always thf speaking out of started to exponentially increase. it 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. and i believed that if i came forward, my single voice would
7:48 am
be drowned out by a chorus of powerful supporters. by the time of the confirmation hearings, i had resigned myself to remain quiet. and letting the committee and the senators make their decision without knowing what mr. kavanaugh had done to me. once the press started reporting on the existence of the letter, i faced mounting pressure. reporters appeared at my home and at my workplace. demanding information about the letter. in the presence of my graduate students. they called my bosses and coworkers 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 had sent to "the washington post" and who had gained my trust. it was important for me to describe the details of the assault in my own words.
7:49 am
since the september 16th, the dates 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 dramatically altered by sexual violence have reached out to share their experience and have thanked me for coming forward. we have received tremendous support from friends and community. at the same time, my greatest fears have been realized, and the reality has been far worse than what i expected. my family and i have been the target of constant harassment and of death threats, and i have been called the most vile and hateful names imaginable. these messages, while far fewer than the expressions of support, have been terrifying and have rocked me to my core. people have posted my personal information and that of my
7:50 am
parents online on the internet. this has resulted in additional emails, calls, and threats. my family and i were forced to move out of our home. since it september 16th, my family and i have been visiting anna various secure locations, at times separated, and at times together, with the help of security guards. this past tuesday evening, my work email was hacked, and messages were sent out, trying to recants my description of the sexual assault. apart from the assault itself, these past couple of weeks have been the hardest of my life. i have had to relive this trauma in front of the world. and i have seen in my life picked apart by people on television, on twitter, other social media. other media, who have never met me or spoken with me. i have been accused of acting
7:51 am
out of partisan political motives. of those who say that do not know me. i am an independent person, and my motivation and coming forward was to be helpful and to provide facts about how mr. kavanaugh's actions have impacted my life so that you could take into serious consideration, as you make your decision about how to proceed. it is 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 at to ask me questions, and i am committed to doing my very best to answer them. i have never been questioned by a prosecutor, and i will do my best. at the same time, because the committee members will be judging my credibility, i do hope to be able to engage directly with each of you, and
7:52 am
at this point, i will do my best to answer your questions. and request some caffeine. >> a coke or something? >> that sounds great. thank you. thank you. >> thank you very much. before i use my 5 minutes of questioning, i thought i would try to remind my colleagues and in this case, ms. mitchell as well, the 5 minutes, the way that i traditionally have done this, 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. and i'm going to make sure that both dr. ford and judge kavanaugh, as chairman of the committee, i have known that
7:53 am
they are going to get a chance to answer the questions fully beyond that 5 minutes. but when either dr. ford or judge kavanaugh gets started, then we immediately go to the next person. so i hope that that will be done, and dr. ford, i'm told that you want to break right now. and if you do, that's fine. >> i'm okay. i got the coffee. thank you very much. i think i can proceed. >> nobody can mix up my coffee right. so you are very fortunate. so now with that, ms. mitchell, you have 5 minutes to ask questions. >> good morning, dr. ford. >> hi. >> we haven't met. i am rachel mitchell. >> nice to meet you. >> i just want to tell you that the first thing that struck me
7:54 am
from your statement is that you are terrified. i just want to let you know i am very sorry. that's not right. i know this is stressful, so i would like to set forth some guidelines that maybe will alleviate that a little bit. if i ask you a question that you don't understand, please ask me to clarify it or ask it in a different way. when i ask a question, sometimes i will refer back to other information you provided. if i do that and i get it wrong, please correct me. >> okay. >> i'm 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, okay? >> that's fair. >> we've put before you, and i'm sure you have copies of them anyway, five pieces of information, and i wanted to go over them. the first is a screenshot of
7:55 am
texting between you and somebody at "the washington post." do you have that in front of yo you? >> yes. for go the first two texts were sent by you on july 6, is that correct? and then the last one was on july 10th. >> correct. >> are those three comments accurate? >> i will read them, yes. so there is one correction >> okay. >> i misused the word "bystander." as an adjective it. >> okay. >> bystander means that someone is looking at an assault, and to the person, pj, technically a bystander. i was writing very quickly with the sense of urgency. so i would not call him a bystander. he was downstairs. you know, what i remember of
7:56 am
him, tall and very nice person. i didn't know him well, but he was downstairs. not anywhere near the event. >> okay. >> i would like to take that word out, if possible. >> okay, thank you for clarifying that. the second is the letter that you wrote to senator feinstein dated july 30th of this year. did you write the letter yourself? >> i did. >> it's dated july 30th, did you write it on that day? >> i believe so. i was in delaware at the time. i could look into my calendar and try to figure that out. >> was it written on or about the day? >> yes. i had traveled i think the 26th of july. so that makes sense because i wrote it from there. >> okay. is the letter accurate? >> i will take a minute to read it. i can read fast.
7:57 am
[silence]
7:58 am
>> okay. so i have three areas that i'd like to address. >> okay. >> in the second paragraph, where it says the assault occurred in a suburban maryland area home, at a gathering that included me and for others, i can't guarantee that there weren't a few other people ther. but they were not in my purview of my memory. >> wouldn't be fair to say that there were at least four others? >> yes. >> what's the second correction? >> oh, okay. the next sentence begins "kavanaugh pushed me into the bedroom." i would say that i can't promise that a marked judge did not assist with that. i don't know. i was pushed from behind, so i don't want to put that fully on him. >> i don't know whether this is fair for me to interrupt, but i want to keep people within 5 minutes. is that a major problem for you
7:59 am
in the middle of a question? i've got to treat everybody the same. >> i understand that. >> can i go to senator feinstei senator feinstein? >> yes, sir. i'm sorry. >> i didn't get to -- >> we are going to get back to that. >> okay. okay. >> for the benefit of dr. ford, i think she will continue that after the 5 minutes here. >> mr. chairman, i would like to begin by putting some letters in the record. 140 letters from friends and neighbors and 1,000 female physicians across the nation. those are what the letters are. >> i will look at that.
8:00 am
>> i want to thank you very much for your testimony. i know how very, very hard it is. why have you held it to yourself all these years? as you look back, can you indicate what the reasons are? >> well, i haven't held it in all these years. i did disclose it in the confines of therapy, where i felt like it was an appropriate place to cope with the events. >> can you tell us what impacts the events had on you? >> well, i think that the cycle life of a sexual assault varies by person, so for me personally, anxiety, phobia, and ptsd like symptoms are the types of things i've been coping with. so more specifically, claustrophobia, panic, and that type of thing.
8:01 am
>> is that the reason for the second front door? >> correct. our house does not look aesthetically pleasing from the curb. >> i see. it do you have that second front door? >> yes. now it's a place to host google entrance because we live near google. >> okay. >> and other students -- >> can you tell us any other ways that this has affected your life? >> the primary impact with the initial four years after the event, i struggled academically. i struggled very much in college when i was 17 and went off to college, i had a very hard timeg friendships, especially friendships with boys. and i had academic problems.
8:02 am
>> what were -- when we spoke and it became very clear how deeply you felt about this, and the need that you wanted to remain confidential, can you talk a little bit about that? >> yes. so i was watching carefully throughout the summer. my original intent, i just want to your mind, was to communicate with everyone when there was still a list of candidates who all seemed to be from my perspective, what i could call equally qualified. i was in a hurry to try to get the information forward but didn't quite know how to do tha that. however, once he was selected and it seemed like he was popular and it was a sure vote, i was calculating daily the risk benefit for me of coming forward. and wondering whether i would
8:03 am
just be jumping in front of a train that was headed to where it was headed anyway, and that i would just be personally annihilated. >> how did you decide to come forward? >> ultimately because reporters were sitting outside of my home, trying to talk to my dog through the window to calm the dog down. and a reporter appeared and in my graduate classroom. i mistook her for a student. she came up to ask me a questio question, and i thought that she was a student, and it turned out that she was a reporter. so at that point, i felt like enough was enough. people were calling my colleagues at stanford and leaving messages on their voice mails and on their email, saying that they knew my name. clearly people knew my address because they were out in front of my house. and just the mounting pressure seemed like it was time to say what i needed to say.
8:04 am
>> i'm sorry. i want to ask you one question about the attack itself. you were very clear about the attack. they pushed into the room. you say you don't know quite by whom. but that it was brett kavanaugh that covered your mouth to prevent you from screaming. and then you escaped. how are you so sure that it was he? >> the same way that i am sure i am talking to you right now. just basic memory functions. also, just the level of epinephrine in the brain. sort of as you know, it encodes that a memory into the hippocampus. with a trauma related experienc experience.
8:05 am
other details kind of draft. >> so what you are telling us is that this could not be a case of mistaken identity. >> absolutely not. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> ms. mitchell, senator . >> thank you, mr. chairman. when we were stopped, you are going to tell us a third correction that you wanted to make on that statement. i'm sorry, the letter to senator feinstein. >> it wasn't a correction, but just a comment on it. since looking out the letter. i did see mark judge after the time of the attack. and it would be helpful with anyone's resources, to figure out when he worked there. if people are wanting more details from me about when the attack occurred, we could find out when he worked there. i could provide a more detailed
8:06 am
timeline as to when the attack occurred. >> so that is not a correction in your statement? >> no. >> you also wrote out a handwritten statement for the calligrapher with your polygraph, is that correct? >> yes. >> and i see corrections on that where you crossed out. so i will go on to "the washington post" article that was originally published on september 16th of this year. >> look at this for accuracy, or leave this be? >> we may go back to it if you need to refer to it. >> okay. >> on "the washington post" article, do you submit to an interview by a reporter with "the washington post" for that article to be written? >> correct. >> okay. and then finally, was the statement that you provided this
8:07 am
morning -- i assume that you the best of your recollection, that that was accurate. >> this whole article is accurate. >> no, the statement that you made this morning? >> okay. >> i want to talk to you about the day that this happened, leading up to the gathering. >> okay. >> in your statement this morning, have you told us everything that you remember about the day leading up to that? >> yes. >> let me ask just a few questions to make sure that you have thought of everything, oka okay? you indicated that you were at the country club swimming that day? >> that's my best estimate of how this could have happened. >> and when you say best estimate, is that based on the fact that you said you went there pretty much every day? is that a "yes"? >> yes. >> do you recall prior to getting there -- so i am only
8:08 am
talking about up to the gathering, had you had anything to drink it? >> not at all. >> for you on any sort of medications? >> none. >> do you recall knowing before you want to is going to be at that gathering? >> i recall expecting that mark judge and leland would be at that gathering. >> do you recall an expectation that brett kavanaugh will be there? >> i don't recall whether i knew that. >> let's talk about the gathering. from the time that you arrived to when you went up the stairs, that period of time. what was the atmosphere like at the gathering? >> mr. kavanaugh and mr. judge were extremely inebriated. they had clearly been drinking
8:09 am
prior, and they were not -- >> can i ask you just to follow up on that. when you say it was clear that they had been drinking prior, do you mean prior to the time that you had gotten there, or the time that they had arrived? >> prior to the time that they arrive. i don't recall who arrived first, whether it was me or them. >> okay. please continue. >> so i recall, i can sketch a floor plan. i recall that it was a sparsely furnished, fairly modest living room. and it was not really a party like it had sounded. 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 it to have parties later at night than i was allowed to stay up. it was kind of a pregathering. >> was allowed? >> no, not in the living room.
8:10 am
>> besides the music that you 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 a stereo playing downstairs? >> no. >> senator, dr. ford, thank you for being here. mr. chairman, though way to make this inquiry truly credible, it is what we have always done with new information, when it comes to light, to use your words this morning, you want to reach the truth. the easy way to ask the fbi to investigate, it is what we have always done. investigate, report back to us, serious allegations made by deborah ramirez and it julie
8:11 am
swetnick it, have a nonpartisan professional investigation, and then take the time to have these witnesses testify. it chairman, you and i were both your 27 years ago. but at that time, the senate failed anita hill. i said i believed her. i am concerned that we are doing a lot less for these women today. that is my personal appeal. now, dr. ford, no matter what happens with this hearing today, no matter what happens to this nomination, i know that i hear from so many of my own, there are millions of victims and survivors out there who have been inspired by your courage. i am. and bravery is contagious. and that is the driving force behind the #metoo movement. you share your story, that is going to have a lasting positive impact on so many survivors in our country. we owe you a debt of gratitude for that.
8:12 am
now some senators have suggested you are simply mixed up about who assaulted you. judge kavanaugh and the white house, even promoted a wild theory about a kavanaugh look-alike. that you rejected that theory. an innocent man who had been called the look-alike, sent a letter forcefully rejecting this theory, entering that into the record. now how did you know brett kavanaugh and mark judge? is it possible that you could mix them up with somebody else? >> no, it is not. the person that was blamed for the incident is actually the person who introduced me to them originally. so he was a member of the columbia country club. i don't want to talk about him because i think it's unfair, but
8:13 am
he is the person that introduced me to them. >> but you would not mix up somebody else with brett kavanaugh, is that correct? >> correct. >> or mark judge. >> correct. >> then let's go back to the incident. what is the strongest memory you have? strongest memory of the incident? something that you cannot forget. take whatever time you need. >> indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter. the uproarious laughter between the two. and they're having fun at my expense. >> you have never forgotten the laughter. you've never forgotten them laughing at you. >> they were laughing with each other. >> and you were the object of
8:14 am
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 of domestic violence. a letter from 24 members of the house of representatives urging the committee for the approach, questioning dr. ford. in light of another 116 members of the house asking to delay how this has been heard -- >> objection. >> dr. ford has at times been criticized for what she doesn't remember from the 36 years ago. but we have numerous experts, including a study by the u.s.
8:15 am
village. and behavior, sciences education and lapses of memory, they are wholly consistent. trauma, assault, we ask that this be entered. >> without objection, so ordered. >> you do you remember what happened, do you not? >> very much so. >> thank you. thank you. >> now, ms. mitchell, four senator graham, and then it is my understanding that that is where you would like to take a break. >> does that work for you? does that work for you as well? >> we are here to accommodate you, not for you to accommodate us. >> i am used to achieving collegial. >> think you mr. chairman. you told senator feinstein that you and for others were presidents. you have corrected that to say
8:16 am
that it was at least four others. when you are interviewed by "the washington post," you said that there were four boys present at the party. and then in your polygraph statement, you said that there were four boys and two girls. when you say to girls, was that you and another, or two other girls? >> that was me and one other. >> and that girl's name? >> leland. >> leland kaiser now. >> correct. >> okay. so then what it be fair to say at least pj, brett kavanaugh, mark judge, leland ingram at the time, and yourself were present and possibly others. >> one other boy. there were -- i just don't know his name. >> have you been contacted by anybody saying "hey, i was at that party too?" >> no, i have not had contact
8:17 am
with anybody at that party. >> now, you have been detailed about what has happened when you got up the stairs. i don't need to go through that again. i'm sorry, go ahead. >> i just realized i said something that was inaccurate. i said i hadn't spoke with anyone at the party. i have spoken with leland. >> thank you for correcting that. i appreciate that. you have gone into detail about what happened once he went up the stairs. i don't feel like it is necessary to go over those things again. >> okay. thank you. >> have you told us everything that you do you remember about it? >> i believe so, but if there are other questions, i can attempt to answer them. >> okay. you said about the music was solely coming from that room, is that correct? >> correct. >> and it was turned up once the three of you were inside that
8:18 am
room, is that correct? >> yes. at some point, do you recall is being turned down? >> i don't remember if it was turned down. i don't remember. likely, since i could hear them walking down the stairs very clearly from the bathroom. speak out okay. and that bathroom door was closed when you heard this, christ? >> i could very clearly hear them hitting the walls. >> in fact, you said that they went down the stairs, and they were talking with other people in the house. >> correct. >> were you able to hear that conversation? >> i was not able to hear that conversation, but i was aware that they were downstairs, and i would have to walk past them to get out of the house. >> now let me make sure we are on the same page. were you not able to hear the conversation or not able to understand the conversation? >> i couldn't hear the conversation. i was upstairs. >> how do you know there was a
8:19 am
conversation? >> i am just assuming since it was a social gathering, people were talking. they were talking as they went down the stairwell. they were laughing. >> you said they both loudly stumbled it down the stairwell. other persons at the house were talking with them. does that ring a bell? >> yes, i had to walk past everyone to leave the house. i'm not understanding, i'm sorry. >> you're next sentence, let me try to clarify this. after you said other persons at the house were talking with them, the letter goes on with the very next sentence, i exited the bathroom, ran outside, and went home. >> correct. >> you said that you do not remember how you got home, is that correct? >> i do not remember, other than i did not drive home. >> okay. i am going to show you, provide
8:20 am
for you a map of the various peoples houses at the time, and if you could verify that this is where you were living at the time. >> where i was living at the time? >> yes. >> okay. okay. >> mr. chairman, do we have a copy of these documents? >> if you want one, we can get you want. >> yes, before the questions begin so we can follow the testimony. >> my staff says that we should not provide the copies. at all. we will provide the copies. speak plainly with me please. >> sure. i'd like to see what she looking at. >> you have another 30 seconds because i was rudely interrupte interrupted. >> mr. chairman, senator harris, we do have a blown up copy of this for the members.
8:21 am
is that helpful? >> okay, i'm going to put checkmarks next to homes that i can cut in the correct locations, and then nx or question mark on where i can confirm. >> i only needed on where you live. >> i am happy to refer to the address. >> it is river falls, near it -- what is the place called? that naval research center. >> was at a house or an apartment? >> my parents owned it. >> mr. chairman, i ask it consented to enter to the record letters of support for dr. ford from classmates at holton-arms the school. at 1200 alumni, 195 students,
8:22 am
mentors, they attended d.c. schools, members of the el law school asking for a full fbi investigation. >> as difficult as this experience must be, i want to note your courage in coming forward. it has given countless americans an opportunity to heal their wounds. you have brought many families into an honest and sometimes painful dialogue which should have occurred a long time ago. i am sorry for what this has done to you and your family. no one, no one should face harassment, death threats, disparaging comments by cheap shot politicians simply for telling the truth. you and your family should know that for every charge and pathetic to, there has been thousands of women and men who believe you, support you, and thank you for your courage. watching your experience, it is
8:23 am
no wonder that many full survivors hide their past and to spend their lives of suffering. you have absolutely nothing to gain by bringing these facts to the senate judiciary committee. the fact that you are testifying here today terrified though you may be, the fact that you have called for an fbi investigation, the fact that you are prepared to name both judge kavanaugh and eyewitness mark judge, stands in sharp contrast to the other sid side. the fbi should have investigated your charges as they did in the anita hill hearings, but they did not. mark judge should be subpoenaed from his bethany beach hideaway and required it to testify under oath, but he has not. it judge kavanaugh, if he truly believes there is no evidence, no witnesses that can prove your case, should be joining us and it demanding a fbi investigation. he is not.
8:24 am
today, you come before this committee and this nation alone. i know you are joined by counsel and family. the prosecutor on the republican side will continue to ask you questions to test your memory and ferocity. after spending decades trying to forget that awful night, it is no wonder your recollection is less than perfect. a polished liar can create a seamless story, but a trauma survivor cannot be expected to you remember every detail. senator lee he mentioned that earlier. one question is critical. if in the opening testimony from judge kavanaugh, this is what he says. "i never had any sexual encounter of any kind with dr. ford. i am not questioning that dr. ford may have been sexually assaulted by some person in someplace out sometime. last night, the republican staff of this community released a
8:25 am
timeline that shows that they have interviewed two people who claimed they were the ones that actually assaulted her. i am asking you to address this new question of mistaken identity directly. dr. ford, with what degree of certainty do you believe brett kavanaugh assaulted you? >> 100%. >> and the letter which you sent to feinstein, i have not seen him since the assault. i did see mark judge once at the safeway, where he was extremely uncomfortable in seeing me. would you please describe that encounter at the safeway with mark judge, and what led you to believe he was uncomfortable. >> yes. i was going into the safeway. this is the one on the corner of river road. i was with my mother. and i was a teenager, so i wanted her to go and one door
8:26 am
and me to go in the other. so i chose the wrong door because the one that i chose was where mark judge looks like he was working there. arranging the shopping carts. and i said hello to him. and his face was white. very uncomfortable, saying hello back. and we had previously been friendly at the times that we saw each other over the previous two years, albeit not many times. we had always been friendly with each other. i wouldn't characterize him as not friendly. he was just nervous and not really wanting to speak with me. he looked -- >> how long did this occur after the incident? >> i would estimate 6-8 weeks. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> before we take a break, i
8:27 am
can't let what senator durbin said it -- by the way, he is my friend, we work on a lot of legislation together. but you talked about the obstruction from the other side. i cannot let it go by. what you have heard me say so many times, that between july 30th and september 13th, there were 45 days. this committee could have been investigating the situation and her privacy would have been protected. so something happened here in between, on your side, that the whole country, well not the whole country, should not know about. we should have investigated. we will take a break now for 15 minutes. >> bret: quite a start to this hearing. dr. christine blasey ford, telling her story. and you just heard senator durbin ask her to what percentage would she say that brett kavanaugh was the person
8:28 am
who attacked her, and she said 100% certainty. compelling testimony, obviously emotional. you could hear a pin drop in the committee room, as senators listen don, and martha, questioning from ms. mitchell, the prosecutor, a little jilted because it's 5 minutes, and it's separated by each senator. so it is not stringing together as far as where she is trying to go in that question. >> you have to believe that the republican senators are asking themselves whether or not this was a good idea. whether or not they have robbed themselves of their opportunity to ask pointed questions in a way that perhaps might be more compelling. ms. mitchell is doing what she probably has always done, which is to methodically go through the questioning, taking a deposition. at the rate that she is going through these questions, it could take seven hours. if she did not have to do it in these chopped up little bits of 5 minutes, then having to pass
8:29 am
it over to a democratic senator. >> bret: let's bring back our panel. in the opening statement from ms. christine blasey ford, it is one thing, and then you hear it, the way that she expresses it. anybody can be critical or not, but it is a totally different thing after you hear it. >> this was extremely emotional, extremely wrong, and extremely credible. nobody could have listened to her deliver those words and a talk about the assault and the impact it had on her life and not have your heart go out to her. she obviously was traumatized by an event. i think you are actually being too nice about the hearing. so far, we have heard from six people, rachel mitchell three times. three democratic senators, this is a disaster for the republicans. you are exactly right.
8:30 am
she is treating this like a deposition, like a court hearing. read the statement, and as a result, we are now 15 minutes in. one round of 11 senators, that is 55 minutes, she is basically almost a third done, and she hasn't gotten anything from this woman. there was one obvious point where she set i knew about for people who were in the home. this woman was friendly, having been at the party, knowing anything about this. she did not mention them. >> bret: and she was locked in the bathroom, said somebody was talking at the bottom, even though she couldn't hear the talking. >> chris: and meanwhile, the democrats are lending haymaker's. what do you remember the most? i remember the laughter of the boys. to what degree of certainty do you know that it was brett kavanaugh? with 100% certainty, i remember this meeting at the safeway with mark judge. a boy i was not going to name at this country club who introduced us.
8:31 am
the democrats are making their points and building their credibility. it rachel mitchell has so far not landed glove. >> she is obviously trying to lay out the discrepancies and creed to to the environment where there may be an ability to say to her you've given different stories. it puts a ding in your credibility to some extent. she doesn't know how she got home. how effective is that? >> shannon: it's really tricky because whenever you're going into a deposition or courtroom, you have a very specific path you want to guide the witness on, hostile or cooperative, you want to get them to a certain point, lay a foundation. she is trying to do all of those things, but chopping this up, and then when she gets to the five-minute cut, she is on going to a very friendly audience. and also gives her a break.
8:32 am
a chance to catch her breath. we will have to see of rachel mitchell is establishing enough of a baseline. at some point, she will be able to come back around. time is running out. it is a difficult way to do this. we have heard democratic senators complaining that there is only 5 minutes, but now that could be working to their advantage. >> martha: i wonder if lindsey graham is saying that he wants to switch 5 minutes. you are shaking your head. why? >> chris: this reminds me of any set at committee hearing. this is how they do it. >> bret: this is brett kavanaugh's house that we are looking lf, expecting him to leave and head to capitol hill. we just want to keep you abreast on what we are looking at. >> chris: if we didn't have this, this woman questioning the witness, which we would have his first one senator, then another. and if you think this is disjointed, think about what that would be like. basically what the democratic senators have done is praise the witness. praise the witness.
8:33 am
you are really sure? yes, really short. so i'm not sure that they would have to have an entirely different process than any other senate hearing i've ever attended or covered and been involved in. and then you would have had the specter of "old white guys" and hostile questioning of this very sympathetic witness. so i am not sure of the alternative, like a courtroom on one side, it doesn't work that way, and it never has. >> bret: we wait to see brett kavanaugh leave his home, we haven't heard from him. he is going to have the opportunity to adamantly, as he has been, say this was not him. he did not sexually assault anyone. he couldn't be more straightforward in his statements that he has already had. under oath. and a long history of being
8:34 am
someone who is upholding the law. so while this testimony is very long, we are going to hear others. >> marie: as these other allegations have come forward, it has been coordinated partisan campaign to take down judge kavanaugh. it is hard to watch dr. ford. she looks terrified to be there. she looks very emotional. she does not look like some partisan hack who is trying to take down a brett kavanaugh. you are right, we will hear from him this afternoon, but we keep hearing about mark judge. submitted a statement, but there are a lot of people saying that he should testify. forget about the others. he's a key part of this. he should come testify though. this question that we talked about earlier, all of these
8:35 am
questions that have not yet been answered, what do the next few days look like for brett kavanaugh? >> one of the most compelling moments, i think it was a moment's that teenager could put themselves in and feel. every time i see them, very friendly to me. said hello and his face went white. nervous, didn't know how to speak. >> >> chris: i understand that hearings are disjointed. my point is the time, the metabolism of the hearing, we don't have time to do this. make your point. rachel mitchell ought to be saying, you say someone is at the party, you don't have time to say read this letter, take
8:36 am
your time. the democrats are scoring points and so far, rachel mitchell hasn't -- >> brit: remember, in this atmosphere, politically, the whole way that republicans have set this up is to get away from the idea that they are going to brutalize and tear down this witness. they are all haunted by what happened with anita hill. her credibility was seriously damaged, but arlen specter, who led to that, he went around basically apologizing for appeared republicans are worried that what they are going to do is to further inflame the #metoo movement with hostile questioning. this gentle line of questioning about the slayer is asking may lead somewhere. it may not. but the question you have to ask yourself is if they were coming at her hot and hard -- >> chris: how about those three other people that you talked about at this party, none of them remember what you say.
8:37 am
>> bret: she may be getting there. this may be the slow rule. >> brit: she has got eight more five-minute segments to go. she could be laying the predicate. we are going to take a quick break here. as the senate judiciary committee happens. an amazing day here in washington, a historic day. thank you for joining us on fox news channel. >> martha: we will be right back.
8:38 am
8:39 am
if you're waiting patiently for a liver transplant, it could cost you your life. it's time to get out of line with upmc. at upmc, living-donor transplants put you first. so you don't die waiting. upmc does more living-donor liver transplants than any other center in the nation. find out more and get out of line today. the riskiest job. the consequences underwater can escalate quickly.
8:40 am
the next thing i know, she swam off with the camera. it's like, hey, thats mine! i want to keep doing what i love. that's the retirement plan. with my annuity i know there's a guarantee. annuities can provide protected income for life. learn more at retireyourrisk.org >> bret: welcome back to special coverage of the brett kavanaugh hearings. we expect to be leaving there sometime soon. he obviously will be testifying as well. on the left side of your screen, they are in a break now after some emotion testimony by his primary and first accuser, dr. christine blasey ford. >> martha: the big question is how everybody is using their
8:41 am
time, and what their goal is today. if your goal is to simply get her to lay her case out, that is what rachel mitchell is trying to do here. if your goal is to potentially reveal whether or not there is any lack of credibility in this witness, i am not sure that they are getting there. at this point. chris. >> chris: i don't understand the idea that rachel mitchell is there to just to be a fact finder. she is there representing the 11 republican senators. they have a view of this case, and she is supposed to help them make their case. >> martha: is sure not be an option to have her do their questioning question when she was brought in as a neutral arbiter, and if anyone on the committee -- >> chris: she was brought in as cut out. if they thought that the objects would be bad to have 11 white men question her. i think they thought that she was going to be tougher and challenging the credibility of this woman. maybe she will be, but she sure
8:42 am
hasn't been so far. >> shannon: i think if she had more time, uninterrupted, we talk about these trunks of time, you've got to think about the conversation that they are having with her right now, during this break. we deputize you to go after her. say that she was not at that party, or that is her sworn statement. maybe that is a conversation they are having behind closed doors about whether she is going to be neutral or try to make their case. it's >> marie: you are right. she was offered to the democrats as well, so i am not sure that rachel mitchell was brought in to do the dirty work. i think the republicans may have felt that way, but right now i can imagine lindsey graham and some other folks on the committee saying we've got to get out there, we have to participate in this because we are losing right now. >> bret: all i am saying is we are only three senators in. we have eight have eight republican senators. 40 minutes for her to make the case. whatever case she is going to make of reason credibility
8:43 am
questions, if that is the road she is going down. am i wrong? >> brit: now, it is worth noting here that for all of the power of dr. ford's testimony, it remains as of this moment ine aftermath of her testimony absolutely uncorroborated. no witness, no person present where this party is supposed to have been, so it remains her word and the thing you believe is that she believes this. the question then becomes can anybody supported? if it remains unsupported by any on corroborating evidence, that will certainly emerge. >> martha: you are essentially saying that this is first, do no harm for the republicans. because there is no corroboration, they are better off not landing punches. just to stay out of the way, then when all of this is over, you can say she is credible, we understand that she told her story, but she still doesn't --
8:44 am
>> brit: we will see if that is how it turns out. i think that is likely to be their approach. they seem to me to be more concerned above all, above anything with not appearing to bully this woman whom they have been accused of bullying so far. can anyone look at this procedure on the republican side and say that the witness has been treated unfairly and a bullied and so late? not. >> bret: can you imagine looking at the senators now, senator graham, these people make a living standing on the senate floor delivering speeches that can sometimes go forever. that must be pretty tough for them to sit there and watch this here and go on without them actively questioning and such a pivotal moment. usually, these hearings become speeches, as we saw the last time with the democrats and the "i am spartacus" moment from cory booker. you know, this is not that. at least on the republican side. >> martha: it's worth pointing
8:45 am
out that the three senators whose time has been enough -- >> chris: i think it would be less hard for them to stand by if they felt that rachel mitchell was less effective than she has been, and i very much would suspect that there has been a lot, the republicans went back to their caucus room, meeting room, he rated the way in which we are getting the information out and challenging the credibility, again, it doesn't have to be brutal. it just has to bring up the facts. in a very respectful way, how do you explain the fact that the one woman at this party says she wasn't there. that's a pretty good question. it seems that you could act ast in a respectful way. this week it, it is on martha maccallum way. >> bret: she says i simply can't account for that. all i can tell you is that it is
8:46 am
more vivid than anything in my life. >> chris: what about mark judge? who says he wasn't there? >> brit: put into the record thing is that grassley had already put into the record. i don't think they have shaken the credibility as a witness. at the risk of looking like you are hostile. >> bret: the panel, as we are debating back and forth, in new york it, watching the early session here, the judiciary committee hearing. your thoughts? >> first, i apologize. i was just on fox news, did not have the benefit of the comments of all of my colleagues in washington. >> bret: that's okay. >> i think that dr. ford is exceptionally credible. and miss mitchell has not had the ability to impair that credibility because of the bazae
8:47 am
her for 5 minutes rule, which is alien to the prosecutorial mind. she really needs to ask senator grassley to call inaudible and it to give her four or five sections at once, so that she can not only develoe report that she needs, but to ad follow-up question, which is nearly impossible. >> martha: thank you, chris stirewalt. the politics of this, as we watch it play out -- hold on, one second. >> yes. >> okay, now it is the senator 's time. so proceed, ms. mitchell. >> thank you, senator. i appear to my right, have the map that was shown to you. the address that is indicated as belonging to your family is what all of the property tax records show as being your address.
8:48 am
just to put it in perspective, i want to show you a further out of that picture so that they can put it in perspective. so we can show the greater washington area. you can see the beltway on that. the beltway area. and the number three, if we could look at that. we drew a 1 mile radius around the country club, and then we calculated -- >> mr. chairman, again, we don't have these documents. no, we are not. that is why she showed three 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. >> 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.
8:49 am
and then the farthest point. you can see it. 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? >> i would describe it as somewhere between my house and for country club. in that vicinity that is shown in your picture. and for country club is about a 20 minute drive from my parents home. >> a 20 minute drive. of course, would it be fair to say that somebody drove you somewhere, either to the party, or home from the party? >> correct. >> has anyone come forward to say to you hey, remember, i was one who drove you home? >> no. >> in your july 6 text it to "the washington post" of that you looked at earlier, you said that this happened in the mid-'80s, in your letter to
8:50 am
senator feinstein, you said it occurred in the early '80s. in your polygraph statement, you said it was high school summer, if you actually had written then, this is one of the corrections for too early. you cross that out. later in your interview with "the washington post" ," you are more specific. youths believed that it happened in the summer of 1982, at the end of your sophomore year. >> yes. >> you said the same thing i believe in your prepared statement. how are you able to narrow down the time frame? >> 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 worked out the safe way, then i would be able to be more helpful about that. so i am just using memories of when i got my driver's license. i was 15 at the time. i did not drive home from that party or to that party, and once i did have my driver's license,
8:51 am
i liked it to drive myself. >> i assume the legal driving age was 16? >> yes. >> now you've 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 their "have therapy records talking about it." i want to understand, did you already have your therapy records at that time? >> i had looked at them online to see if they existed, yes. speak up so this was something that was available to you via computer, like a patient portal? >> actually, no, it was in the office of a provider. she helps me go through the records to locate whether i had records of this conversation that i had remembered. >> did you show a full or partial set of those marriage
8:52 am
therapy records to "the washington post"? >> i don't remember. i remember summarizing what they found. so i'm not quite sure if i actually gave her the record. >> okay. so it's possible that the reporter did not see these note notes? >> i don't know if she -- i can't recall if i just told her what they said. or if she saw them directly. >> have you shown them to anyone else besides your counsel? >> just by counsel. >> would it be fair to say that brett kavanaugh's name is not listed in those notes. >> name is not listed in those notes. >> would also be fair to say that the therapist notes, that they say that there were four boys in the room? >> it describes the sexual assault.
8:53 am
erroneously by four boys. it so they got the contents of a drunk. >> and you corrected that to "the washington post" reporter, correct? >> correct. >> thank you, chairman. thank you dr. blasey ford. a lot of people are proud of you today. from the 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's a hard day for the prosecutor to do that. in the cell both because making a sincere and thorough investigation is such an important consolation to the victim in that circumstance and because what you are obliged to do professionally, is sincere
8:54 am
and thorough, is critical 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 statements. you have a vivid, specific, and a detailed recollections, something that prosecutors look for. your recollections are consistent with known facts. you made prior consistent statements, something else that prosecutors look for. you were willing to and it did take a lie detector test, and you were willing to testify here. are you are, subject to cross-examination by the
8:55 am
prosecutor. so you have met any condition, but any prosecutor could expect to go forward, and yet there has been no sincere or thorough investigation of your claims. you specifically asked for an fbi investigation, did you not? >> yes. >> and are you aware that when they start investigating, they might find corroborative and exculpatory evidence? >> i don't know what exculpatory is it -- >> not helpful to your recollections and version of events, helpful to to the accu. >> understood, yes. >> so it could go either way, and you are not just willing, but insistence that the fbi should investigate your recollection and your claims. >> yes, i feel like it could be
8:56 am
more helpful if that was the case and providing some of the details that maybe people are wanting to know about. >> and as we know, they didn't, and i submits that never, never in the history of background investigations, has an investigation not been pursued when new, credible, derogatory 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. in my view, it is a grave disservice to you. and i want to say that when somebody is willing to come
8:57 am
forward, even under those circumstances, even having not been given the modicum of service of a proper investigation, you have shown yourself particularly proud in doing that. the decision to have this be the only background investigation and history to be stopped as derogatory information came forward, cam 113 men, the president, director ray of the fbi, and the 11 members of the . as to the committee's investigation, the fact that mr. kavanaugh's alleged accomplice has not been subpoenaed, has not been examined, and cross-examined under oath, has not been interviewed by the fbi, tells you all you need to know about how credible this performance i is. the very bare minimum that a person who comes forward is owed
8:58 am
is sincere and thorough investigation, and you have been denied that. i will make a personal pledge to you hear that, however long it takes, whatever form i can do it, whenever it's possible, i will do whatever is in my power to make sure that your claims get a full and proper investigation. and not just this. thank you for being here. >> thank you. >> since this issue has come up so many times, i would like to comment. the new yorker published an anonymous account of allegations, september the 14th, 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 the 17th, dr. ford's counsel went on several television shows requesting that her client have an opportunity to tell her story.
8:59 am
the same day i scheduled a hearing for monday, september september 24th, giving doctor for a week to prepare her testimony and come to washington, d.c. on september the 17th, committee investigative staff reached out to dr. ford and judge kavanaugh to schedule follow-up interviews with republican and democrat investigators. judge kavanaugh accepted the opportunity to speak to the investigators under criminal penalty. dr. ford declined. in his interview on september the 17th, judge kavanaugh denied the allegations and requested a hearing as soon as possible. democratic staff refused to participate in that interview. the next day, september the 18th, committee investigative staff contacted mark judge requesting an interview. committee staff also learn the identity of two other alleged partygoers and requested interviews. mark judge submitted a statement under penalty of felony. denying knowledge of the party described by dr. ford. and he states that he never saw
9:00 am
brandt in the matter described by dr. ford. i can go on and on about that. we got to realize that what we have done in this case, of all the time you go through a background investigation by the fbi. then it comes to us. there is always some holes in it that we have to follow up on. besides -- >> mr. chairman -- >> we are responding to dr. ford's request to tell her story. that's why we are here. >> mr. chairman, mr. chairman -- >> ms. mitchell -- >> mr. chairman, i just want to point out, to support what senator whitehouse said, and the anita hill case -- >> can we hear from dr. ford? >> george bush ordered that the investigation be opened again. >> ms. mitchell, will you per proceed for senator lee? >> thank you, mr. chairman. dr. ford, "the washington post" reported in their september 16th article that y

67 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on