tv Outnumbered FOX News September 27, 2018 9:00am-10:00am PDT
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 you did show them.
is that incorrect? >> i don't remember physically showing her a note. perhaps my counsel dead, i don't remember physically showing her my copy of the notes. but i don't remember. i'm sorry. i have retrieved a physical copy of those medical records. >> okay, thank you. you also attended individual therapy. did you show any of those notes to the reporter from "the washington post"? >> again, i don't remember. i showed her something that i summarized, or if i just spoke about it. or if she saw it in my counsel's office. i don't know for sure. but i certainly spoke with her about the 2013 record with the individual therapist. >> and brett kavanaugh's name is not in those notes, correct?
>> correct. >> okay. in reading "the washington post" article, it mentions that this incident that we are here about contributed to anxiety and ptsd problems with which you have struggled. the word "contributed" -- does that mean there are other things that have happened that have also contributed to anxiety and ptsd? >> i think that is a great question. i think that the ideology of "anxiety" and "ptsd" is multifactorial. that was certainly a critical risk -- we would call it a risk factor in science. that would be a predictor of the symptoms that i now have. it doesn't mean that other things that have happened in my life would have made it worse or better, if there are other risk factors as well. >> have there been other things, then, that have contributed to the anxiety and ptsd that you suffered?
>> i think there is sort of biological predispositions that everyone in here has for particular disorders. i can't rule out that i would have some biological deep preds to be an anxious type person. >> what about environmental? >> environmentally, not that i can think of. certainly nothing as striking as that event. >> okay. in your interview with "the washington post," he said that you told your husband early in your marriage that you had been a victim of, and i quote, "physical abuse." in your statement he said that before you are married you told him that you had experienced "a sexual assault." do these two things referred to the same incident? >> yes. >> at either point on these two times, did you use any names? >> no. >> may i ask, dr. ford, how did
you get to washington? >> in an airplane. >> okay. i ask that because it has been reported by the press that you would not submit to an interview with the committee because of your fear of flying. is that true? >> well, i was willing -- i was hoping they would come to me, but i realized that was an unrealistic request. >> it would have been a quicker trip for me. [laughs] >> yes. that was certainly what i was hoping, was to avoid having to get on an airplane. but i eventually was able to get up the gumption with the help of some friends and get on the plane. >> when you were here in the mid atlantic area back in august, the end of july, august, how did you get here? >> also by airplane. i come here once a year during the summer to visit my family. i'm sorry, not here -- i go to
delaware. >> okay. in fact, you fly fairly frequently for your hobbies and you have had to fly for your work, is that true? >> corrects, unfortunately. >> you are consulting by a statistician in sydney, australia. is that right? >> i have never been to australia, but the company i work for is based in australia and they have an office in san francisco, california. i don't think i will make it to australia. >> [laughs] it is long. i also saw on your cv that you list the following interests of travel, and you, in parentheses put "hawaii, costa rica, south pacific islands, and french polynesia." >> have you been to all this places? >> yes. >> by airplane? >> yes. >> and your interest also include hawaiian and tahitian culture. did you travel by air as part of those interests? >> correct. it's easier for me to travel going that direction when it's a
vacation. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here, dr. ford. in my job as a prosecutor, we investigated reports like this. he gave me a window on the types of cases that hurt women and hurt all of us. i would always tell the women who came before us that they were going to have to tell their story before a jury box of strangers. you have had to tell your story before the entire nation. for so many years, people slipped cases like yours under the rug. they would say "what happens inside a house didn't belong in the courthouse." well, the times have changed. i just want to think you for coming forward today, and for sharing your report with us. now, i understand you have taken a polygraph test. dr. ford, that found that you were being truthful when he described what happened to you.
can you tell us why he decided to take that test? >> i was -- i was meeting with attorneys. i was interviewing various attorneys, and the attorneys asked if i was willing to take it. i said absolutely. that said, it was almost as anxiety-provoking as an airplane flight. >> okay. i do have talked about your recollections in seeing mark judge at that safe way. if there had been an appropriate reopening of the background check and fbi interviews, would that help you find the time. if you knew when he worked at that safeway? >> i feel like it could be much more helpful if i could be provided with that data through employment records or the irs or something. anything would help. >> i would assume that's true. dr. ford, under federal law -- and i don't expect you know this -- but statements made to medical professionals are considered to be more reliable. there is a federal rule of evidence about this.
you told your counselor about this back in 2012, is that right? >> my therapist? my individual therapist, correct. >> i understand that your husband was also present when you spoke about this incident in front of a counselor. he recalls you using judge kavanaugh's name. is that right? >> yes, i just have to slow down a minute because they might have been confusing -- they were two separate incidents. where it's reflected in my medical record. i talked about it more than those two times, but therapists don't typically write down content as much as they write down process. they usually are tracking your symptoms and not your story and the facts. i just happen to have it my record twice. the first time is in 2012 with my husband, in couples therapy with quibbling over the remodel. then, in 2013, with my
individual therapist. >> so if someone had actually done the investigation, your husband would be able to say that you named his name at that time. >> correct. >> okay. i know, your privacy throughout the process, you first requested that your account be kept confidential. can you briefly tell us why? >> yes. so, as i stated before, once i was unsuccessful in getting my information to you before the candidate was chosen, my original intent was to get the information when there was still a list of other candidates available. once that was not successful and i saw that persons were very supportive of the nominee, i tracked it all summer. i realized that when i was calculating that risk-benefit ratio, it looks like i was going
to just suffer only for no reason. >> from my experience with memory, i remember distinctly things that happen to me in high school. or happen to me in college. but i don't exactly remember the date. i don't exactly remember the time. sometimes -- i mean, i remember the exact place where it occurred, but i remember the interaction. many people are focused today on what you are not able to remember about that night. i actually think you remember a lot. i'm going to freeze it a little differently -- can you tell us what you don't forget about that night? >> the stairwell. the living room. the bedroom. the bed on the right side of the room, as you walk into the room. there was a bed to the right. the bathroom in close proximity. the laughter. the uproarious laughter.
and, the multiple attempts to escape. the final ability to do so. >> thank you very much, dr. for dr. ford. >> of dr. ford, i want to correct the record, but it's not something that i'm saying that you stated wrongly because you may not know the fact that -- when you said that you didn't think it was possible for us to go to california as a committee, or our investigators to go to california to talk to you, we did, in fact, offer that to you. we had the capability of doing it, and we would have done it anywhere or anytime. >> thank you. >> mr. chairman, caught up with the polygraph results on the record, please? the polygraph results in the record. >> is there any objection? >> let us see the chart. >> the polygraph? you want to see it? >> would you hold just a minute,
please? >> i think you have it. >> yeah, can we have the underlying charts, too? >> the underlying charts? i have the polygraph results that i would just like to put in the record. i will do with the charts after that. can i put the polygraph test in the record? >> mr. chairman, we had proposed having the polygraph examiner testified, as you know. if that had happened, the full panoply of materials that he had supporting his examination would have been provided. he rejected that request. so what we did provide was the polygraph report, which is what the members of the committee currently have. >> on september 26, mr. chairman, this was actually sent to your chief counsel. i just want to share it with america so that they have this report, as well. >> okay, we will up except witt objection. we are also requesting at accepting the other materials that i just dated.
>> but, mr. chairman, you wouldn't under allow the underg witness to testify, nor would you allow mark judge to testify. i would just like to point out, thank you for allowing this report in the record, but that is the reason that we don't have the underlying information for you. >> you got what you wanted, and i think you would be satisfied. >> i am satisfied. >> editor, go ahead. >> when was the polygraph administered >> it was administered on august the seventh. 2015. and it was the date of the report, august 10th 2018. >> when was it provided to the committee? >> let's just see if we can't do this in a more orderly way. >> he was asking, and i have it right here. you have it, as well. september 26. >> we have accepted it. ms. mitchell, for senator cruz. >> thank you.
dr. ford, we have talked about the day and the night that you have described in the summer of 1982. thank you for being willing to do that. i know it's difficult. i would like to shift gears and discuss the last several months. >> okay. >> in your statement, you said that on july 6th you had a "sense of urgency" to relay the information to the senate and the president. did you contact either the senate or the president on or before july 6th? >> no, i did not. i did not know how to do that. >> okay. prior to july 6th, had you spoken to any member of congress? when i say congress, i mean the senate or the house of representatives, or any congressional staff members, about your allegations.
>> no. >> why did you contact "the washington post" on july july 6th? >> i was panicking, because i knew the timeline was short for the decision. people were giving me advice on the beach. people who don't know about the processes that they were giving me advice -- and many people told me "you need to hire a lawyer." and i didn't do that. i didn't understand why i would need a lawyer. somebody said "call "the new york times," call "the washington post." put in an anonymous tip. go to your congressperson." and when they weigh those options, i felt like the best option was to try to do the civic root , which is to go to my congressperson, who happens to be anna eshoo. so i called her office, and i put in the anonymous tip to
"the washington post." neither, unfortunately, got back to me before the selection of the nominee. >> you testified that congresswoman anna eshoo's office contacted you on august 9th, is that correct? >> they contacted me on the date that the nominee was announced. that seems likely. >> had you talked about your allegations with anyone in her office before the date of july 9th? >> i told the receptionist on the phone. >> on july 10th, you texted "the washington post" again, which was really the third time. is that right? second date, third time? >> let's see. >> one moment. >> correct. >> and you texted "been advised to contact senators or "new york times." haven't heard back from "washington post"." who advised you to contact senators or "the new york times
"the new york times"? >> beach friends. coming up with ideas of how i could try to get to people, because people weren't responding to me very quickly. very quickly they responded to that text. for an unknown reason. once i sense that encrypted text, they responded very quickly. >> did you contact "the new york times"? >> no. >> why not? >> i wasn't interested in pursuing the media route, particularly. i felt like one was enough. "the washington post." i was nervous about doing that. my preference was to talk with my congressperson. >> of "the washington post" texted back that someone would get in touch, get you in touch with a reporter. did you subsequently talk to a reporter with "the washington post"? >> yes, under the encrypted app. and off the record. >> okay. who was that reporter?
>> emma brown. >> okay, the person who ultimately wrote the story on september 16th? >> correct. >> okay. did you talk to any member of congress? again, remember, congress includes the senate or the house of representatives. or, any congressional staff members about your allegations between july 10th and the july 30th? which was the date of your letter to senator feinstein? >> yes, i met with congresswoman eshoo's staff, and i think that's july 18th. on the wednesday, and then the friday. that was the congresswoman herself. >> when you met with her, did you meet with her alone, or did someone come with you? >> i was alone. she had a staff person. >> okay. what did you talk about with congresswoman eshoo and her staff on july 18th and the 20th? >> i described the night of the
incident, and we spent time speaking about that. i asked her how to -- what my options were in terms of going forward. and, how to get that information relayed forward. also i talked to her about fears of whether this was confidential information, and she's discussed the constituent confidentiality principal. >> thank you. >> thank you, chairman grassley. i would like to ask the unanimous consent to some of the record five articles. including one entitled "why did the cavanagh accuser come forward earlier? ">> without objection so ordered. >> dr. ford, i want to begin by thinking you to come in to sign front of us today. you came forward with very serious and relevant information about him nominee for a lifetime position on our supreme court.
you didn't have to, and i know you have done it at great personal cost. this was a public service. i want you to know that i'm grateful to have the opportunity to hear from you directly today. i would like to first follow up on that line of questioning. ms. mitchell was falling. i think a lot of people don't realize that you chose to come forward with your concerns about judge kavanaugh before he was nominated to the supreme court. do i understand correctly that when you first reached out to congresswoman eshoo into "the washington post" headline, that was when he was on the short-list but before he was nominated to the supreme court? is that correct? >> correct. >> if i understood your testimony earlier, you're motivated by a sense of civic duty and, frankly, i hope that some other highly qualified nominee might be picked? not out of the motivation at a late stage to have an impact on the final decision? >> correct. i thought it was very important to get the information to you, but i didn't know how to do it.
while they were still a short-list of candidates. >> thank you, doctor. according to justice department data, about two-thirds of sexual assault survivors don't report their assaults. based on your experience, i would be interested in hearing from you about this, because you bore this alone. you bore this alone for a very long time. it would be helpful for us to better understand the ways that that impacted your whole life. >> well, it has impacted me at different stages of the development of my life. the immediate impact was probably the worst. the first four years, i think i described earlier a fairly disastrous first two years of undergraduate study at the university of north carolina where i was finally able to pull myself together. then, once coping with the immediate impacts, the
short-term impacts, i experienced longer-term impacts of anxiety and relationship challenges. >> thank you for sharing that. and yet, you went on to get a phd from usc, is that correct? >> correct. >> as you predicted, there was a wide range of responses to your coming forward. some thousands of survivors have been motivated and inspired by your courage. others have been critical. as i reviewed the wide range of reactions, i've been really troubled by the excuse offered by too many that this was a high school incident and boys will be boys. to me, that is just far too low a standard for the conduct of men and boys in our country. if you would, i would appreciate your reaction to the excuse that boys will be boys. >> i can only speak for how it has impacted me greatly for the last 36 years, even though i was 15 years old at the time.
i think -- the younger you are when these things happen, it could possibly have worse impact than when you -- when your brain is fully developed and you have better coping skills that you have developed. >> experts have written about how it's common for sexual assault survivors to remember some facts about the experience very sharply and very clearly, but not others. that has to do with the survival mode that we go into in experiencing trauma. is that your experience, and is that something you can help the layperson understand? >> yes, i was definitely experiencing the fight or flight mode. is that what you are referring to? yes. i was definitely experiencing the surge of adrenaline and cortisol and norepinephrine. i credit that a little bit for my ability to get out of the situation. but also some other lucky events that occurred. they allowed me to get out of the event. >> dr. ford, we are grateful
that you came through it, and that you shared your account with us and the american people. i think you have provided important information. i would like to thank you for meeting your civic duty. i wish we could have provided for you a more thorough hearing today. i think asking for the fbi to investigate this matter thoroughly was not asking too much. i think asking to have the other individual involved in your assault, mark judge, appear out before us today was not asking too much. i'm grateful you came forward, and i'm thankful for your courage, which sets an important example. thank you, dr. ford. >> ms. mitchell for senator sasse. >> dr. ford, we were talking about you meeting in july with congresswoman eshoo. did you talk about your allegations with any republican member of congress or congressional staff? >> i did not. where i lived, the congresswoman is a democrat. >> okay.
was it communicated to you by your counsel or someone else that the committee had asked to interview you, and that they offered to come out to california to do so? >> i'm going to object, mr. chairman, to any call for privilege conversation between counsel and dr. ford. >> could you validate the fact that the offer was made without her saying a word? >> is it possible for that question to be answered without violating any counsel relationships? >> can i see something close to mark do you mind if i see something to directly? i just appreciate that you did offer that. i wasn't clear on what the offer was, if you were going to come out to see me i would have happily hosted you and been happy to speak with you out there. i just did not -- it was not clear to me that that was the
case. >> does that take care of your question? >> yes, thank you mr. chairman. >> proceed, then. >> before july 30th, the date on your letter to senator feinstein, had he retained counsel with regard to these allegations? >> no. i didn't think -- i didn't understand why i would need lawyers, actually. i just didn't know. >> a lot of people have that feeling. [laughs] let's talk about the letter that he wrote on july 30th. you asked senator feinstein to remain confidentiality "until -- >> wait until she -- >> i'm just trying to look for it. >> stop the clock, will you? >> it's in there someplace. here it is. >> oh, i found it. sorry. >> you asked senator feinstein to maintain confidentiality
until we have further opportunity to speak, and then you said you were available to speak further not into the midatlantic until the seventh. is that correct? >> the last line, is that what you're referring to? i'm just now catching up with you. sorry, i'm a little slower. my mind is getting a little tired. "i am available to speak further, should you wish to discuss." out of his in delaware until august 7th. after that i went to new hampshire and back to counseling it. >> did you talk with anybody about this letter before you sent it? >> i talked to anna eshoo's office. >> and why did you talk to congresswoman eshoo's office about that letter? >> because they were willing to hand-deliver it to senator feinstein. >> did anyone help you write the letter? >> no. >> okay.
after you sent your letter, did you or anyone on your behalf speak to senator feinstein personally or with any senate staffer? >> yes. i had a phone call with senator feinstein. >> okay. when was that? >> that was while i was still in delaware, so before august 7th. >> okay. and how many times did you speak with senator feinstein? >> once. >> okay. what did you talk about? >> she asked me some questions about the incident. and -- i answered those questions. >> okay. was that the extent, the gist of the conversation? >> yes, it was a fairly brief phone call. >> okay. did you ever give senator feinstein or anyone else permission to release that letter? >> not that i know of. >> okay. between the letter date, july 30th, and august the
seventh, did you speak with any other person about your allegations? >> could you see the dates again? >> between the letter date of july 30th, and august 7th. so while you were still in delaware. did you speak with any other person about your allegations? >> i'm just trying to remember what the dash >> you asking her without the help of any lawyers, correct? >> correct. >> i think correct, then. i was interviewing lawyers. speaking personally about it. >> aside from lawyers that you were seeking to possibly hired to represent you, did you speak to anybody else about it during that period of time? >> no. >> okay. >> i was staying with my parents of the time. >> did you talk to them about it? >> definitely not.
>> so, would be fair to say that he retained counsel during that time period of july 30th to august 7th? >> i can remember the exact date, but it was -- i was interviewing lawyers during that period of time, sitting in the car, in the driveway, in the walgreens parking lot, in delaware. trying to figure out how the whole system works of interviewing lawyers, how to pick one, et cetera. >> you testified earlier that you had -- you didn't see the need for lawyers. now you are trying to hire them. what made you change your mind? >> it seems like most of the individuals that i had told, which didn't -- the total number was not very high, but those persons advised me to come at this point, get a lawyer for advice about whether to push forward or to stay back. >> that include congresswoman
eshoo and senator feinstein? >> no. >> i want to thank dr. ford for what you said about acknowledging that we had a said we would come to california. senator blumenthal? >> thanks, mr. chairman. i wanted to join in thanking you for being here today. just tell you -- i have found your testimony powerful and credible. and i believe you. you are a teacher, correct? >> correct. >> you have given america an amazing teaching moment. you may have other moments in the classroom, but you have inspired, and you have enlightened america. you have inspired and given courage to women to come forward, as they have done to
every one of our offices, and many other public places. you have inspired and you have enlightened men in america. to listen respectfully to women survivors, and men who have survived attacks. and that is a profound public service, regardless of what happens with this nomination. and so the teachers of america, people of america, should be really proud of what you have done. let me tell you why i believe you -- not only because of the prior consistent statements, the polygraph test, and your request for an fbi investigation. you are urging that this committee hear from other witnesses who could corroborate or dispute your story. but, also, you have been very
honest about what you cannot remember. someone composing a story can make it all come together in a seamless way, but someone who is honest -- i speak from my experience as a prosecutor, as well -- is also candid about what she or he cannot remember. the senators on the other side of the aisle have been silent. this procedure is unprecedented in a confirmation hearing. but i want to quote to one my colleagues, senator lindsey graham, in a book that he wrote in 2015 when he was describing his own service.
very distinguished naval service, as a traveler. i'm not under oath. [laughter] >> i don't think so. >> he said, of his prosecutions of rape cases, "i learned how much unexpected courage from a deep and hidden place it takes for a rape victim or sexually abused a child to testify against their assailant. i learned how much courage from a deep and hidden place it takes for a rape victim or sexually-abused child to testify against their assailant." if we agree on nothing else today, i hope on a bipartisan basis that we can agree on how much courage it has taken it for you to come forward.
and i think you have earned america's gratitude. now, there has been some talk about your requesting an fbi investigation. and you mentioned a point to just a few minutes ago that you could better estimate the time that you ran into mark judge if you knew the time that he was working at that supermarket. that's a fact that could be uncovered by an fbi investigation. it would help further elucidate your account. would you like mark judge to be interviewed in connection with the background investigation, and the serious credible allegations that you have made? >> that would be my preference.
i'm not sure it's really up to me, but i certainly would feel like i could be more helpful to everyone if i knew the date that he worked at the safeway so i could give a more specific date of the assault. >> well, it's not up to you, it's up to the president of the united states. and his failure to ask for an fbi investigation, in my view, is tantamount to a cover up. thank you, mr. chairman. >> ms. mitchell for senator flake. >> thank you. we have heard this morning, several times, that you did take a polygraph. that was on august the seventh, is that right? >> i believe so, it was the day i was flying from dwi to manchester, new hampshire. >> why did you decide to take a polygraph? >> i didn't see any reason not to do it. >> where you advised to do that? >> again --
you are seeming to call for communications between counsel and clients. i don't think you mean to do that. if you do, she shouldn't have to answer that. >> counsel, could you let her answer the extent to which doesn't violate the relationship between you and dr. ford? [inaudible] >> based on the advice of the council, i was happy to undergo the polygraph test. although i found it extremely stressful. much longer than i anticipated. i told my whole life story, i felt like. i endured it.
>> i understand it can be that way. have you ever taken any other polygraph in your life? >> never. >> okay. you went to see a gentleman by the name of jeremiah hannah fenn to serve as a calligrapher. did anyone advise you on that choice? >> yes, i believe his name was jerry. >> jerry. did anyone advise you on that choice? >> i to understand the dash yeah, i didn't use them myself. he was a person that came to do the polygraph test. >> he actually conducted the polygraph knot in his office in virginia, but actually at the hotel next to the washington airport, is that right? >> correct. >> why was at location chosen for the polygraph?
>> i had left my grandmother's funeral at fort lincoln cemetery that day, and was on a tight schedule to get a plane to manchester, new hampshire. he was willing to come to me, which was appreciated. >> so he administered a polygraph on the day that you attended your grandmother's funeral? >> correct. it might have been the next day. i spent the night in the hotel. i don't remember the exact day. >> have you ever had discussions with anyone besides your attorney on how to take a polygraph? >> never. >> i don't just mean countermeasures, but i mean -- just any sort of tips or anything like that? >> no. i was scared of the test itself, but i was comfortable that i could tell the information and
the test would reveal whatever it was going to reveal. i didn't expect it to be as long as it was going to be, so it was a little bit stressful. >> have you ever given tips or advice to somebody who was looking to take a polygraph test? >> never. >> did you pay for the polygraph yourself? >> i don't -- i don't think so. >> okay. you know who did pay for the polygraph? >> not yet, no. >> did -- you have the handwritten statement that you wrote out. it did anyone assist you in writing that statement? >> no, but you can tell anxious i was by the terrible handwriting. [laughs] >> did you -- we touched on it earlier. did you know that the committee has requested not only the
charts from the polygraph test, but also any audio or video recording of the polygraph test? >> no. >> where you audio and video recorded when you were taking that test? >> okay, so, i remember being hooked up to a machine, being placed onto my body. being asked a lot of questions, and crying a lot. that's my primary memory of that test. i don't know -- i know you took laborious detail in explaining what he was going to be doing, but i was just focused on what i was going to say and my fear about that. i wasn't listening to every detail. about whether it was audio or video-recorded. >> well, you are in a hotel room, right? a regular hotel room with a bed and bathroom? >> no, it was a conference room. i was sitting at a chair, and he was behind me. >> did you know any cameras were
in the room? >> he had a computer set up, so i guess he assumed that he was somehow taping and recording made. >> okay, so you assumed you were being video and audio recorded. >> correct. >> but you don't know for sure. >> i don't know for sure. >> okay, thank you. >> we are going to recess now for half an hour for lunch. thank you, dr. ford. >> were going to keep going -- >> yeah >> it looks like were going to take a break here. they said 1240. it didn't seem like dr. christine blasey ford wanted to go. she wanted to keep on going. but this hearing is continuing. ping-ponging back and forth between the prosecutor, rachel mitchell, from arizona, and democrats using their time individually. 5 minutes at a time. after the original emotional statement at the beginning, now we are into the part of the
hearing where it is methodical. from the republican side of the questioning, and obviously, democrats pointing to come as they said many times, her courage coming forward. >> you can see you're surrounded by her advisors there. she's smiling, she seems more relaxed, may be, then people thought she would be. or maybe more than she thought she would be. back to the main topic here is the effectiveness of this questioning. shannon, let me go to you on this first. with regard to what is going on here, what line of questioning? she went back and forth, did you realize you're being photographed? were you in a hotel room, or a conference room during this? any thoughts on what she's trying to achieve? >> i think a couple things. first of all, we have the polygrapher on our show. she said she room is being hooked every up for a long time. maybe there's some confusion because she was emotional in the moment. i think we are now seeing
mitchell lay a lot of predicates. one of those was about the medical records, because she kept asking her "did you show them to "the washington post"? did you give them to the porter? "and i said "i can't recall, maybe they saw them at my counsel's office, maybe i summarize them." and they have asked for these records paid her team has claim privilege and that they should never be releasing those records, their sensitive in nature. if she can show that she was handing them over to reporters, that can make a different argument. >> there is another part establishing some credibility questions about whether she couldn't fly out to talk to the committee. that was the reason her attorneys gave for delaying this. she then went through, how she spun off places. she does like flying, she says, but flies for not only business but pleasure. then said that she didn't know that the committee had offered to fly out to california and question her there. >> that wasn't her strongest moment as a witness, because that offer to go to her from the
committee was public. and widely known. the lawyer would let her talk about any consultations they may have had about that, but she said she didn't understand that. i'm not sure how much damage that did to her credibility, and i would say this about her credibility -- the more hesitant, the more fragile she has seemed, though more powerful and credible i think she comes across to the audience. this poses an intriguing challenge for judge kavanaugh. how does he respond to this? the problem is he's being asked to prove a negative, or establish a negative. the fact that her testimony remains basically utterly uncorroborated doesn't really help him that much today. he has to come in and somehow be at least as convincing as she is, and maybe even more so. it's a very tall order. whether she's telling the truth or not. >> they're obviously trying to poke some holes in her credibility in a very gentle way, by asking these questions
about the medical records, but whether or not she understood that they said they would convert. also, who paid for the polygraph cost mark there's been an effort to establish there might've been some outside political arm that had some influence over her. she was asked several times, who did you consult? did anyone consult with you on that? but it's really hard to say, chris, whether any of us has landed any dent at all in her credibility. >> no, and, in addition -- and i'm a little surprised that rachel mitchell has spent so much time on -- we thought that while she was laying the predicate for what happened back in 1982, she spends an enormous amount of time now talking about what happened in july and august of 2018. in the end, it seems to me that this hearing is going to -- and the nomination of brett kavanaugh -- is going to sink or swim on the question of "do you believe that brett kavanaugh committed sexual assault against her? "and they really haven't shaken that story at all. i find it astonishing that they
haven't brought up the fact that every other person you've mentioned. mark judge, pj, leland, all of them say that this didn't happen. they tried to break her on that. not in a brutal and insulting way, but simply questioning "why is it that you remember something that nobody else members? "including the lifelong friend, leland the implication here is that somehow she's a democratic operative or an anti-kavanaugh operative. the fact is, she did send this letter in july before brett kavanaugh was even nominated, and said "i just want you to know this before the president goes down the road of nominating judge kavanaugh." it doesn't sound like a democratic operative, it sounds like somebody who believes -- i'm not saying it happened -- believes that brett kavanaugh did this and was trying to stop him, everybody, from going down this road. >> she did talk to senator feinstein on august 6
grade seventh. she takes the polygraph on august 7th. that's when she talked to diane feinstein. we talk about the time constraints, and with the situation was with senator feinstein. marie, there is one viewer who is paying close attention. probably the most important viewer, and that is president trump. we don't know officially what he is thinking about this moment, but you would think about watching this and seeing how she is received is a big part of this equation for this nomination going forward. >> that's right. president trump, who, yesterday, for the first time, open the door a little bit to possibly replacing them as the nominee, depending on today went -- i would be fascinating to see how he feels today's going. the other group of people i think it would be interesting to get their take on today is senator collins and senator murkowski. how are they doing this customer car they watching this hearing? we also have reporting that there may be a couple of other republican senators more on the fence then we have heard publicly. so far today, we have heard a
very credible seemingly nonpartisan witness speaking to something she clearly believes happened. what will be key now is how brett kavanaugh reacts. not just what he says, but the tone with which he says it. >> and brett kavanaugh -- it's going to fall on him to bring up these issues. that these are uncorroborated, that mark judge says it doesn't happen. petey said it did happen nobody's doing that for him in the course of his entire process, which is very clear. >> this is exactly the situation that clarence thomas face. despite all the aggressive questioning she got it, especially famously from senator specter, in the end -- the anita hill got -- in the end it was up to him. he went aggressive, played the race card, and fact. we saw the sound bite earlier. and it worked. this is this the kind of thing t kavanaugh will try to do in his own way? >> he's a lawyer, a judge.
he knows the courtroom, he knows how to layout evidence. this is really at stake for them right now. >> he's the ultimate mild-mannered man, though, isn't he? >> you know from the interview. he seemed pretty robotic and some of those answers when he said he just wants a fair process. 17, 18 times. there were times when he was indignant, like the michael avenatti charges that you brought up, but you wonder whether his tone and tenor is going to change today in this testimony. >> and you wonder or not that experience informs him today, and whether or not he says " -- " -- -- i have to believe he's listening to every second of this. they have it so he's watching on its own. is this what he's watching cosmic firing it up? is it firing him up that nobody spoken holes in these questions? maybe it turned out to be a good thing for him, the nobodies out there really doing what needs to be done. perhaps that will set a spark that will cause him to see
different brett kavanaugh. >> i'm taking his side on it for the moment. he's got to come up as a man who has been unjustly accused of something he didn't do. his repetition has been besmirched. his family has been threatened. his children have been insulted, and their lives have been turne turned -- there has to be a sense of outrage and indignation because, let me tell you, if the charges made against me, that's the way i would react. that's what anybody would react. he would do that in the interview with you, he's got to basically say "not just i want to fair process and this is and who i am." he's got to say "this never happened." and in his own way he's got to do a clarence thomas. >> emma and i just began, because there are other senators that they might not seed their time to rachel mitchell for the questioning of kavanaugh. if they think they are things i need to be rehabilitated or getting to the point of "what about all these foreign statement's? "they may use their time themselves to help him with that. >> there was one view that was
very important, but there probably about ten to 12 who are right on the fence. as to which way they are going to vote, that will determine this nomination. judge andrew napolitano joining us. judge, this is not a court case, but it is the court of public opinion. >> the court of public opinion. if our colleague is an adequate sample of it, it's that she is extremely credible and rachel mitchell not only is not laying a glove on her, but, in my view, is actually helping her credibility by the gentility with which these questions are being asked. and the open-ended answers that the witness is being permitted to give. the president cannot be happy with this. the white house team that has advised judge kavanaugh for two months now cannot be happy with this. judge kavanaugh is an academic jurist. the court room in which he operates is not one like you see on television with lawyers shouting at each other and trying to intimidate witnesses and juries. they engage in academic
arguments. he's got to show that mantle. he's got to become a person inflicted with the most righteous examination in order to overcome the extraordinarily credible performance that his accuser has made so far. only that will save him at this point. >> here is christine blasey for blasey ford, describing this attack and what was an opening statement that really everyone in the room was captivated by. >> brett tried to take off my clothes. he had a hard time because he was very inebriated, and because i was wearing a 1-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 branch was accidentally going to kill me >> fighting back against that, pointing out that the friend she says was there said she wasn't there. the other people say they weren't there. but that moment, judge, you know -- is the moment. >> it is, it is the moment. ultimately, as chris wallace has been saying, it's going to be he said, she said at the end of the day. but by five or 6:00 this afternoon, i think there will be a consensus about which of the two is more believable. this is not -- i've been saying this all week -- this is not about the truth. this is about believability of the two witnesses. i don't want to form a judgment yet, because we haven't heard a peep from judge kavanaugh. all of us agreed that this witness is exceptionally credible. ms. mitchell has not laid a glove on her.
>> judge -- you know, when you look at what everybody had, the information we had going into this, there was a lot of speculation about her as a witness. but she didn't like to fly, that may be she was -- you know, would not come across as credible as she is. it makes it hard politically. let me put this question to the panel. when you talk about susan collins, when he talked about lisa murkowski, jeff flake, i think at least at the point we are at right now, it's going to make it pretty difficult for them to say "i heard what she had to say, and i don't believe her." >> that's why his testimony coming up after is going to be so critical. flick himself said "we can get to the end of the day and not change a single vote. we could be left with two very credible witnesses that this doesn't solve the issue for them." many of them may feel that way. we've got to see what he brings this afternoon. >> i think kavanaugh needs to look indignant, like you said, chris, but he can't look too angry. he has to show some sort of
empathy for a situation that this woman clearly believes happening to her, while saying "it wasn't me." i think you not only will have him responding to dr. ford's allegations, but also the allegation. some are more credible than others. he's going to have to maintain his composure. >> hanging in the balance is this seats that conservatives desperately want. >> yes, and desperately democrs desperately want them not to have. this will come down to a handful of republican senators who are probably supposed to vote for imprints of what will they say if it ends up being a standoff? you can't say you don't believe her, so what you say is "i believe she believes this, i believe she's mistaken for it i believe judge kavanaugh." that's a defensible position, that's what they can hope for.
♪ no matter when you retire, ensure you still have income every month of your retirement, guaranteed. see how lincoln can help. >> with what degree of certainty do you believe that brett kavanaugh assaulted you? >> 100%. >> 100%. >> that's a moment you are going to see over and over from this hearing, it is now 1:00 on the east coast and after hours of testimony in question questioning, the kavanaugh hearing now on a lunch recess. i martha maccallum, welcome to our special coverage of the senate judiciary hearing. dr. christine blasey ford making a case in answering questions in an hour-long hour-long session.