tv The Daily Briefing With Dana Perino FOX News September 27, 2018 11:00am-12:01pm PDT
sophomore year, his junior year of high school. four or five parties at my friends and i attended that were attended also by him. >> did anything happen at these events? like we are talking about? besides the time we are talking about? >> you can answer that question, and then i will go to senator harris. >> there was no sexual assault at any of those, if that is what you are asking. >> yes. >> maybe we can go into more detail when there is more time. i feel time pressure on the question. i'm happy to answer any further details. >> i'm sorry. go ahead and finish answering your question. >> oh, okay. did you want me to describe those parties? >> can we move this to the next round, mr. chairman? >> answer the question.
>> i'm happy to describe them if you wanted me to. or not. whatever you want. >> whatever is your preference. >> maybe this will cut to the chase. is there anything else that was inappropriate, inappropriate sexual behavior at any of these other functions? >> no. >> senator harris. >> dr. ford, just so we can level set, you know that you are not on trial. you are not on trial. you are sitting here before members of the united states senate judiciary committee because you have the courage to come forward, because as you have said, you believe it was your civic duty. i was struck in your testimony by what you indicated is your intention when you first let anyone associated with -- know about it.
what you basically you said is he reached out to your representative in the united states congress, hoping that person would inform the white house before judge kavanaugh had been named. that's extremely persuasive. about your motivation for coming forward. and so i want to thank you. i want to thank you for your courage, and i want to tell you i believe you. i believe you. and many americans across this country believe you. and what i find striking about your testimony as you remember key searing details about what happened to you. you told your husband and therapist, two of the most intimate of your confidantes. and you told them years ago about this. you have shared your experience with multiple friends years after that and before these hearings ever started. i know, having personally prosecuted sexual assault cases and child sexual assault cases
that study after study shows that trauma, shame, and the fear of consequences almost always cause survivors to at the very least a delay reporting if they ever report at all. police recognize that, prosecutors recognize that, medical and mental health professionals recognize that. the notes from your therapy sessions were created long before this nomination and corroborate what you have said today. you have passed a polygraph tes test. polygraph and submitted the results to this committee. judge kavanaugh has not. you have called for outside witnesses to testify and for expert witnesses to testify. judge kavanaugh has not. but most importantly, you have called for an independent fbi investigation into the fact judge kavanaugh has not.
and we owe you that. we owe the american people that. and let's talk about why this is so important. contrary to what has been said today, the fbi does not reach conclusions. the fbi investigates. it interviews witnesses, gathers facts, and then present that information to the united states senate for our consideration and judgment. this committee knows that. in spite of what you have been told. in 1991, during a similar hearing, one of my republican colleagues in this committee stated "these claims were taken seriously by having the federal bureau of investigations launch an inquiry to determine their validity. the fbi fulfilled its duty and issued a confidential report." well, that could have and should have been done here. this morning, it was said that this could have been investigated confidentially back in july, but this also could
have been investigated in the last 11 days since you came forward. yet that has not happened. the fbi could have interviewed mark judge, patrick smith, leland kaiser, you, and it judge kavanaugh these issues. the fbi could have examined various maps presented by the prosecutor on this committee. the fbi could have gathered facts about the music where the conversation or any other detail about the gathering that occurred that evening. that is standard procedure in a sexual assault case. in fact, the manual that was signed off by ms. mitchell, the manual that is posted on the county attorney's website as a guiding principle for what should happen with sexual assault cases, highlights the details of what should happen in terms of the need for an objective investigation into
any sexual assault case. the investigation requires cooperation with a multidisciplinary team that includes medical professionals, victim advocates, dedicated forensic analysts, and other law enforcement members. the menu also stresses the importance of obtaining outside witness information you have bravely come forward. you have briefly come forward. and i want to thank you because you clearly have nothing to gain for what you have done. you have been a true patriot infighting for the best of who we are as a country. i believe you are doing that because you love this country, and i believe history will show that you are a true profile in courage at this moment in time in the history of our country, and i thank you. >> senator kennedy no will proceed. miss mitchell. >> dr. ford, we are almost done.
just a couple cleanup questions. which of your two lawyers did senator feinstein come of the recommend? >> the katz firm. >> when you do to leave that night, did a leland keyser ever follow up with you and say hey, what happened to you? >> i have had communications with her recently. >> i'm talking about like the next day. >> no, she did not know about the event. she was downstairs, and i did not share it with her. >> have you been -- are you aware, that the three people at the party besides yourself and brett kavanaugh, have given statements under penalty of felony to the committee? >> yes. >> and are you aware of what whe statement say? >> yes. >> and are you aware that they say that they have no memory or knowledge of such a party? >> yes.
>> do you have any particular motive to subscribe to leland? >> i guess we could take those one at a time. leland has significant health challenges, and i am happy that she is focusing on herself and getting the health treatments that she needs, and she let me know that she needed her lawyer to take care of this for her. and she texted me right afterwards, it was an apology. et cetera. so i am glad that she is taking care of herself. i don't expect that pj and leland would remember this evening. it was a very unremarkable part party. not one of their more notorious parties. because nothing remarkable happened to that evening. they were downstairs. and mr. judge was a different story. i would expect that he would remember that this happened.
>> understood. senator harris just questioned you from the protocol on sexual assault. that is a paper that she was holding up. are you aware that -- and you know, i've been really impressed today because you've talked about norepinephrine and cortisol, what we call in the profession, the neurobiological effects of trauma. have you also educated yourself on the best way to get to memory and truth in terms of interviewing victims of trauma? >> for me, interviewing victims of trauma? >> no, the best way to do it. the best practices for interviewing victims of trauma. >> no. >> okay. would you believe me if i told you that there is no study that says doing this in 5 minutes increments is the best way to do that?
[laughs] >> thank you, counsel. agreed. it did you know that the best way to do it is to have a trained interviewer talk to you one-on-one in a private setting and to let you do the talking. to let you do the narrative. did you know that? >> that makes a lot of sense. >> it does make a lot of sense, doesn't it? and then to follow up, to fill in the details and ask for clarifications, does that make sense as well? >> yes. >> the research is done by a lot of people, and the child abuse field, prominent ones, easel and fisher to talk about it. this is not a cognitive interview. did anybody ever advise you from senator feinstein's office or
from representatives of ann eshoo's office to go get a forensic interview? >> no. >> and said you are advised to get an attorney and to take a polygraph. it is that right? >> many people advised me to get an attorney. once i had an attorney, i discussed using the polygraph. >> and instead of submitting to an interview in california or having a hearing, we are having a hearing today at five minute increments. is that right? >> i agree that that is what was agreed upon by this group here. >> thank you. i have no further questions. >> i have something to submit for the record. we have received three statements under penalty of felony from three witnesses identified by dr. ford, mark judge it, leland keyser, and patrick smith. all three denied any knowledge of the incident or gathering
described by dr. ford. i will enter into record -- >> mr. chairman, i have something for the record as wel well. a number of letters from the witnesses family and friends, including her husband. >> okay. i will get to you just as soon as a ranking member. >> mr. chairman, i have three letters addressed to you both you and the ranking member, and i would ask that they be entered to the record. >> without objection. >> it is also my understanding that mr. judge's not willing to come forward to answer our questions. as a result, we cannot test his memory or make any assessment of his thoughtfulness of character. and i think that's why the failure to call him to testify is so very critical. and i hope the majority would reconsider that. >> senator blumenthal. >> i ask if you have a sworn statement that you are
submitting for the record, that we have those individuals come before us so that we can ask them questions. i think that's the nature of this proceeding would be compromised if we lack an opportunity to ask them questions about sworn statements that would be part of the recor record. so frankly, mr. chairman, i would objected to entering them into the record. >> mr. chairman. >> i have a number of letters that i would like to ask submitted to the record that relate to the importance of proper investigation by a trained, pulling these investigations together from the leadership conference. the national organization for women, and so forth. >> senator kennedy. >> i have a question. the statements that senator blumenthal talked about,
those were statements taken by our majority staff. >> they are already in the record. >> yes. but they were taken by our majority staff. did minority separatists made? >> no. >> why not? >> you would have to ask of the them. >> did they choose not to participate? >> if i may, mr. chairman -- >> let's listen to senator feinstein. >> can we be excused? >> the witness is quite tired. >> if we can wait just a minute, i would like to thank dr. ford. >> in fact, we are going to continue this meeting. so let's just be nice to her. dr. ford, dr. ford. i can only speak as 1 of 21 senators here, but i think you very much for your testimony. more importantly, for your bravery coming out.
and it trying to answer our questions as best as you could remember. thank you very much. we will adjourn for 5 minutes e 45 minutes. or not adjourn. recess. >> dr. christine blasey ford. the accuser of dr. dominic judge brett kavanaugh. hugging her attorney. she was grilling her methodically, and at the end of her questioning, saying this is not exactly how this goes, this in five minute increments. and at the end of the day, that is really what came out of this. she did prove some different questions about credibility, about her memory, blasey ford's memory, ms. mitchell i think had a tough time stringing that narrative together and between the five minute segments. >> martha: it's fascinating that she used that final 5 minutes, the end of it, to basically say to christine
blasey ford, this is kind of really ineffective, wasn't it? it was a difficult way to do this. if we had the right circumstances, we would be sitting together. as we said, throughout, it has raised a lot of presidents quet this choice and whether it was oh wise one. >> bret: of the next part is a judge brett kavanaugh, and he will launch his defense. we haven't heard that yet, so we have to be fair to you that as well. let's go back to our panel quickly. chris. >> when we said that she was grilled by rachel mitchell, it was pretty mild and a gentle, and frankly seem to in a lot of places. i think the point she was trying to make at the end when she was saying the real way to do this is a long cognitive hearing and a conversation, she was basically saying and you didn't allow us to do that because you are given the opportunity that the staff could have, and met
with you and talked it to you at length, and you didn't do that. now blasey ford said i didn't know that you are offering that, but the whole world knows that she was off for that. that was made very clear by the majority, the republican majority. either she or her lawyers didn't want that to happen, and seem to perfectly happy with this format, which really -- i think the choice of this lawyer, this prosecutor, mitchell, who just didn't seem to understand that you can some bring up -- you have to basically go with your high, hard fast one right at the start, and to try to shake her. she really never shook her basic argument. she spent a lot of time on our you democratic operative? kind of belied by the fact that she sent a letter to her democratic congresswoman, there are a lot of republicans in california as it is. before, and i was even named, i
want to head this off. trying to sabotage the person who is a week away from being confirmed, try to prevent him from being named in the first place. >> martha: what her motives were, what she wanted to talk about is one part of the story. the other part is the timing on the part of democrats and the way that they ended up using that information. and it's clear that it would have never gotten out to the public, most likely, unless it had been likely linked by somebody in one of those democratic offices. so they became political about it, but going through her seems very ineffective. >> bret: what was fascinating, let me point out, the last 5 minutes, she was referring to the incident. you know that the other three people that you mention to say they don't remember it, they weren't there. and what was interesting is that blasey ford said well, there were health issues with one of her friends, leland.
>> marie: she also said, and i thought this was very important here nothing remarkable happened to them. why would they remember it? and i think there are a lot of people that that resonates with. >> did any of you have -- >> did you find her to be credible? >> i found no reason to find her not credible. there are obviously gaps in her story. we know that happens with people who are traumatized. gaps. again, i regret that she finds herself in the circus-like setting because her letter to senator feinstein was released to the press against her knowledge and without her authorization. and she wasn't told by her lawyers. she could not be interviewed in a private setting, by
investigators on both sides. give her testimony that way. i thought she did just fine. >> are you pleased with rachel mitchell? >> i think she did exactly what i hoped she would do, that is in a dignified and professional way, asking questions, get information. i would say most of the comments made by our friends across the aisle were more political. they were seeking information. we obviously are interested in getting to the truth here. and unfortunately, this is a hyper politicized environment. no doubt about it. >> towards the end, did you think that's ms. mitchell was questioning for political motives? >> here's what i can say. i'm really upset that they knew about this in august and it never anybody. i'm really upset at dianne
feinstein believes that this was a credible allegation, that she wouldn't do mr. judge kavanaugh the service of saying i've got this. it turned it over to the committee. not have something this close to the midterms. they say that she wasn't sure willing to get out there. that is such a bowl. i don't know what they told her, we were willing to go to california. we were told she couldn't fly. for being a 40 something days away from the election, and they lay this past the midterms so that they can win back the senate and never allow trump to fill the sea. i believe that now more than ever. this is what i am more convinced of. the friends on the other side turned out to be just the way it is. i feel ambushed as a majority. we are going to hear from mr. kavanaugh, judge kavanaugh, and here's what what i will tell
you. when it comes to where it happened, i still don't know. i don't know when it happened. she says she's 100% certain it did happen. i bet you judge kavanaugh will say i'm 100% sure i didn't do i it. the people named, they don't know what ms. ford is talking about, she doesn't know how she got home, a nice lady who has come forward it to tell a hard story that is uncorroborated. and this is enough. god help anybody else who gets nominated. based on what i heard today, you could not get a search warrant or an arrest warrant because you don't know the location, you don't know the time, you don't have any corroboration. as to ms. mitchell, that is what i hope she would do. i heard a bunch of speeches from a bunch of politicians who have politicized of this from day one, who has been in wait. not ms. ford, but certainly them, making a bunch of
speeches, and ms. mitchell methodically went through the facts of what happened that day. leading up to that day, and how we found ourselves there. from my point of view, i am pleased with what i saw. >> your background as a prosecutor, sitting up there, did you find a doctor forward it to be credible? >> i did not find her allegations to be corroborated against mr. kavanaugh. i don't doubt that something happened to her, but she can't say the house, the city, the month of the year. he is saying i didn't do it, but here is what you do. when you have an emotional accusation and an emotional denial, you use the rule of law, the presumption of innocence attached it to the person accused. you have to give them time and location. you ask if there's anybody to verify this, and all of it goes the other way. having said that, what i think about ms. ford, very confident, accomplished lady.
something happened. i don't know what. you are asking me to say it was brett kavanaugh, and i don't know what happened, where it happened. i will say this. i thought it was a good suggestion for her to talk to somebody, to work through this. >> how is that not all an argument for a full investigation? >> if you really believe that we need an investigation for this, why didn't you tell us in augus august? the fbi is going to tell us what? what house are they going to go to? what city are they going to go to? who are they going to talk to because they can't tell us the month and michael bailey the year. so this is all the lab. here is where they are going. i don't know what she is talking about. they want to call 25 people, say that he is an abuser. guess what? we will be passed to the midterm. i'm not going to reward people
for playing the committal poli. she is just as much a victim as brett kavanaugh. somebody betrayed her trust. and we know who she gave the letter to you, and the people that betrayed her trust, they owe her an apology. >> do you still want to vote tomorrow? >> senator lindsey graham, obviously fired up. he has been very passionate particularly over the last few days, he feels like brett kavanaugh has gotten a very bad deal in the way that this has worked out in regards to when the evidence was given, and all of the passion that surrounds the desire for an fbi investigation, he feels should have happened when these allegations were first made. it should have been handled in a completely different process. >> dominic >> bret: you wonder about this charge. it is really all about getting past the midterms. getting to the hearing, flying in.
negotiating, it's really all about november 6. >> brit: certainly a part of it is that it is about the delay. the democrats win on this. get past the midterm, witnesses might come forward. so unless and until there is a vote, it is all good for the democrats because you can't move the nomination forward without one, the case remains forward. others will come forward, as we saw within the last 24-36 hours. they are all week, really. democrats have a good talking point. calling for an fbi investigation in political terms is unmistakably a good talking point. now it overlooks a lot, and it certainly overlooks the fact that the committee staff has sought to investigate this in a way that you would expect. like this one, the judiciary committee have investigators,
and we know that that effort has been stonewalled a little bit. certainly not cooperated with by the minority. but it is a good talking point, the longer they can keep it going, the better it is for them. >> martha: i think back to the frustration in the early days of this hearing, when we saw the effort to disrupt the hearing and to derail the hearing. there was anger at chuck schumer that he hadn't done enough to push back on this whole thing, and you look at where we are today, he has to feel like this effort has been worth it for them. at least at this point. we wait for brett kavanaugh. >> bret: let's bring in karl rove, former senior advisor to george w. bush. carl, your thoughts on this day, and what we have seen transpire. >> karl: we saw an emotional, and credible witness. we saw ms. mitchell, the designated questionnaire. kept them out of trouble by not having ten men line up to confront this woman claiming to
be the victim of a horrific sexual abuse. she did not put doctor forward and much difficulty herself until the very end. i think the point that she made at the end, 400 people, three men, kavanaugh, p.j., and a good friend of yours, nellie lynn kaiser. those are the people that you remember being there. they don't confirm, corroborate what you had to say. i think she scored some points on the issue of the leaking. i think bret is absolutely right. they wanted this as a talking point. they could have turned it over to the fbi and had everybody interviewed confidentiality, but now that it has been made publia democrat cost to celebrate. it keeps the focus on something they want. and if they succeed in delaying it, so much the better, but even
if they don't, they occupy valuable space in the weeks leading to the midterm election. to be dumped so, given the fact that we are only halfway through, it is halftime at this point. we all could be talking in a very different way after brett kavanaugh speaks. if you are sitting at the white house as you use to do, watching this play out, what are you thinking right now about this nominee? >> karl: law, first of all, you are absolutely right. we are at halftime. we are all junkies. we are watching this. we are watching every single moment of this. the american people are going to receive this in two or three or four snippets, if you will. a couple from dr. forward it, and a couple from a judge kavanaugh. the question will be how did they evaluate those? there's going to be no clear winner in all of this. to be let's be clear about thi. people will look at brett kavanaugh and say he is credible, i believe him.
but they will evaluate this whole thing by looking at snippets, so the best moments of each, and we have seen the best moans for dr. ford. we are about ready to see the best moments of judge kavanaugh out of the course of the afternoon. >> bret: our number one of you are, president trump, how does this factor into this? or is it about the wavering republicans? >> karl: my sense is that it is more the latter than the former. he says if i can get this across the line, then i would like to rather than going to the starting point. we have been talking about collins, flake, but there may be other members out there on the committee or off the judiciary committee who will form an opinion after the end of this afternoon. they could be supportive of kavanaugh, or they could be undermined. we won't know until it is all
over. that is why this is so importan important. the republicans have two-thirds of thresholds. they cannot lose a single member of the 11 members on the judiciary committee, and among all 51 republicans, they cannot lose to to go. my gut tells me that this is so far enough to keep the judiciary committee in support of kavanaugh. his performance will guarantee whether there are 51 republican votes or 50, plus vice president mike pence to confirm this nomination. >> dominic >> bret: karl rove. thank you. we should point out that with judge clarence thomas, your vote confirmed him, but it is about counting heads. to be too hard to underestimate the importance of the next two hours for brett kavanaugh. he is about to amped walk in
there, take on really the most important goal of his life at this moment. and whether or not she can save himself. stay tuned for that. we're going to take a break. stay tuned for our continuing coverage of the hearings of brett kavanaugh. 300 miles per hour, that's where i feel normal. i might be crazy but i'm not stupid. having an annuity tells me retirement is protected. annuities can provide protected income for life. learn more at retireyourrisk.org
annuities can provide protected income for life. when i went on to ancestry, i just put in the name yes, we are twins. of my parents and my grandparents. i was getting all these leaves and i was going back generation after generation. you start to see documents and you see signatures of people that you've never met. i mean, you don't know these people, but you feel like you do. you get connected to them. i wish that i could get into a time machine and go back 100 years, 200 years and just meet these people.
being on ancestry just made me feel like i belonged somewhere. discover your story. start searching for free now at ancestry.com. >> bret: this is a fox news alert. the senate judiciary committee is now in recess. christine blasey ford finished with her testimony, emotional at times. judge brett kavanaugh at the top of the hour. it is going to be a big deal.
mike emanuel joins us from right outside the hearing room. mike set the stage about what is going to happen. >> well, good afternoon. we expect that judge brett kavanaugh will say that he was not a perfect teenager but that he did not do what professor ford has accused him of. he has never sexually assaulted anyone. they say that it is all in his hands right now. as they say that professor ford was a compelling witness emotionally. they say that there are holes in her testimony. there were some factual errors and factual omissions, and so they are not sure how that will play, but they do acknowledge that the emotional aspect of her testimony does work with the public. now they are saying that they are hoping, republicans are, that judge kavanaugh will be equally compelling, if not more. and it may be a matter of what senators have to determine in terms of who they believe at that point. we do expect that judge kavanaugh will come down this hallway behind me in the next 15 or 20 minutes or so to have his big moment in front of the
committee and obviously in front of the nation. we will see what he has anything to say on the way in. probably not. he will probably save his talking for the lawmakers this afternoon. >> bret: mike, real quickly, the question, i assume is going to be a little bit different. obviously, ms. mitchell is not involved in the 5 minutes increments, as she was doing. this will be senators either attacking him or rehabilitating him, depending on what side they are on. >> you are absolutely right. obviously a concern for republicans is that they think that there are a number of democrats on this committee who are going to run for president. harris from california, cory booker from new jersey. so they are wondering whether they will try to make this a major tv movement that could be a launch for their 2020 campaign, but you are correct that republicans will look to pump them up a bit, and to defend his integrity, defend his name, as he prepares to appear
before the nation. at >> martha: john roberts standing by at the white house. john, wanting to check in with you and see if there are any new developments with what we have seen so far? >> the president has been watching all of the proceedings when he was on his way down here. he has been in residence of her sons, watching the proceedings as well. as for what is coming up, i was told a couple of minutes ago that judge kavanaugh, when he appears before the committee, has to be fiery, he has to be consistent. you know, martha, you had the interview with him on monday. i think there is a sense that he has to be more forceful, more emotional than he was on monday night during that interview because this is his one chance to try to win over enough republicans to get through the committee. but even if he doesn't get through this committee, he can get to the whole senate. he has to win over a number of republicans to get across the finish line. in terms of christine blasey ford's testimony, officials here at the
white house told me that you know, there were a lot of inconsistencies and some of the things that she had said. there were a lot of gaps in her recollection of the actual event, but that she was very emotional, and the telling of the story, you. the emotion of the telling of the story and the actual facts. it was there any evidence? they do not think that other than her recollection, there was any evidence. but in her recollection of what she could remember, she came across as very credible. so judge kavanaugh has to probably have the interview of his life if he wants to get confirmed for the senate. the supreme court, not the senate. politically, if this doesn't happen was judge kavanaugh, i mean they have a fallback position. they have a list with about 20 other judges that they could pick from. but getting another nominee before the senate to do all of the rams and hearings before the
midterms, impossible. likely wouldn't happen before the new congress is seated in a january, and we don't know what the makeup of it is going to be, so that's why the president is so anxious to get kavanaugh through. because if he doesn't happen, it's not going to happen until the new year, and if democrats take control of congress, if they particularly take control of the senate, you might not get another supreme court justice until after the 2020 elections, so there is so much for the president and for republicans writing on the next few hours of testimony. everyone here, no questions, on the edge of their seats. judge kavanaugh has to bring it, or it is not going to happen. martha. >> martha: very true. very true. you know, john, any reaction that you got from the decision to how ms. mitchell delivered those questions? were they happy with that?
do you have a sense of that? >> i think the sense of that is it was a good idea, at least in terms of objects. because your alternative was it -- and i think democrats really wanted to see this, 11 middle aged to older white men questioning a woman about potential sex crime. so the idea to bring her in was one that the white house appreciated, and i think many of the republicans did. i know lindsey graham did. in terms of the execution of how it went, i think you would probably get a variety of opinions. >> bret: john roberts, live on the north lawn. i have received and seen now through fund-raising emails from democrats from the testimony so far. so this is a political moment. >> brit: i think robert's use to say you can't take the
politics out of politics. this is an unmistakably political process. it is a little bit unseemly to see this kind of fund-raising off of something like this, but that is how it works. reason to the question of whether this is a good-faith effort effort to get you the truth about this, or just to try to block nominee, her trump, keep those supreme court from bg knocked out of balance. whether it is a really serious truth finding operation, i think a lot of people look at this and think that it is not. >> martha: chris, your thoughts as we wait for kavanaugh to come into the room. obviously, as we said, we've got a big moment to head. >> chris: you know, i have covered some trials earlier in my career. don't make judgments in the middle of the trial because the prosecution brings its case first, and they make it as damaging as possible. and you will sit there halfway
through the trial and say this defendant is cooked. no chance at all, and then the defense brings its case. i don't think that the republicans did as good of a job as they could have done or should have done in trying to shake the credibility or the story of christine blasey ford. but having said that, you know, you have been pointing it out, and quite rightly, brett kavanaugh is going to get his chance. he is a man of towering intellect and accomplishment. there are problems with christine blasey ford's story. there are no facts. it is an indelible memory, very powerfully stated on her part. but there are no facts. it lets wait and see what brett kavanaugh has to say. in the middle of a trial, you don't make your judgment until the end. >> brit: of the friend of saying she doesn't remember it. lee lynch. i mean, that could be something that kavanaugh jumps on.
if brett kavanaugh will be sitting down, giving opening statements. we will see you right here on fox news channel's continuing coverage. ion when you're a mom and an entrepreneur. with more businesses starting every day, how do they plan for their financial wellness? i am very mindful of the sacrifices that i make. so i have to manage my time wisely. ♪ plan your financial life with prudential. bring your challenges.
oh! oh! ♪ ozempic®! ♪ (vo) people with type 2 diabetes are excited about the potential of once-weekly ozempic®. 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 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®! ♪ (vo) ask your healthcare provider if ozempic® is right for you.
>> i'm really upset that they knew about this in august and never told anybody. i'm really upset that dianne feinstein believed this was a credible allegation, that she wouldn't give a mr. judge kavanaugh the service of saying i've got this, what's your side of the story? so that we can have something out this close to the midterms. when they say that she wasn't sure we were willing to go out there, that's a bunch of bull. we were willing to go to california. we were told she couldn't fly. all i could say that it is 40 something days away from the election, and they delay this past my midterm so that they can
win the senate and it never allowed trump to fill this seat. >> bret: senator lindsey graham just a few moments ago, saying what he thinks about the motivation and all of this. when asked if he thought that dr. christine blasey ford's testimony was credible, he said it's not on credible. from west virginia, credible as a credible witness, i think the testimony is riveting. the republican senator, who went to holton-arms, the school that she attended, has not really weighed in how she is going to vote yes. a number of republicans not definitively assaying until it is over how they are going to cast their vote. >> martha: i think you could say that a lot of them share her feelings. they are very angry about the way that this was handled, and there was an opportunity to
really bring this forward, to have an investigation. they feel jumped. they feel like this is a process that nobody should be proud of. judge is standing forward. your thoughts, when you look back on the first half of this, what are your thoughts on how successful the groundwork was laid up by rachel mitchell, and whether or not there was any benefit from it from the republicans perspective. >> i think the republicans made a grave error, not necessarily in choosing ms. mitchell, but having her crafter questioning the way that she did. to me, someone who has been living in the world of questions and answers for 45 years, it sounded more like a deposition in a civil case where you are looking for information, and you want the witness to talk, rather than the type of interrogation, which would limit the witness'
testimony and undermine her credibility. quite frankly, i think they should have had lindsey graham do the interrogation. you just saw him summarize for peter doocy what he could have done in a couple of hours. >> bret: let me just push back from another perspective. they did not attack this one is. it is a very sensitive thing. towards the end of the questioning, she really went after the other people who were there, who say that they weren't there and i don't remember what christine blasey ford remembers. and she laid -- put some holes in the credibility of whether she could fly or not, whether this is a delay, who paid for the polygraph? you know, for somebody looking at that, it was not no harm no foul. >> but the republicans are in a far deeper hole now. judge kavanaugh, then before christine blasey ford testified, they really did very little to
undermine her credibility. in fact, she fortified it by letting her give amiable, rational, emotional, attractive, reasonable explanations at almost every opportunity. i realize how delicate this is. i understand of course there are reasons for which they chose rachel mitchell. but i don't think she succeeded. >> martha: yeah, it felt like they had one arm tied behind their back. now that this is a fight, but there is a way to ask these questions in a respectful, courteous manner, and it to lay out the areas where there is no operation. when she got into that, towards the end, as bret was saying, and her friend, leland, who is the only other woman who she places at the scene, she did not say it could have happened, i don't remember, she said it doesn't happen. she said the reason that she gave was that she was going
through medical reasons. >> my thought is you don't ask a question without knowing the answer, and dr. ford's answer was a compassionate one. look, i will admit my faults. i have a tendency to look at this as if it were still a courtroom. this is not a courtroom. we are not looking for the truth. this is political. it is not legal. the tools of both of these professions are being used, but the result here will be used by the national impression three or four hours from now, about who is more likely to have told the truth. dr. ford or judge kavanaugh. he is deep in a hole now. he has the intellectual ability, and i believe, the personal passion to dig himself out of that hole, but the whole is deeper now than it was this morning because of this happened manner in which the witness was.
>> bret: and before judge kavanaugh does his defense and stands up for himself, you are saying right now that this testimony today possibly moves with some votes away from kavanaugh. >> i say at this point, if chris wallace is right, we have to wait until the testimony is in. but in the middle of the afternoon, it's a disaster for the white house. >> bret: judge, thank you. >> martha: all right, let's go to shannon. listening to what the judge said there, it is not a court of law, but it is a credibility case. so you have to make the case that you are credible or make the case that she is not credible. and you know, as the judge said, they took some leeway. a >> shannon: all of the things that would help you, it s a court of public opinion. they are just a handful of senators that this is playing too. we did get some nuggets from her in the questioning of rachel
mitchell that was very understated. we got more about the timeline. we know that she sent this letter to dianne feinstein july 30th, and she says that they had a phone call. met with them. she had had a phone call, and of the hearing not until september september 4th. following the public hearing, and so the very day the committee was originally scheduled to vote, this letter went public. >> chris: it is a win for republicans. they could easily say this is all political. if you focus on the allegations and her testimony slowly, she had a pretty good morning. one thing chris mentioned, the letter came out before the nomination was announced. judge brett kavanaugh was selected on the 9th of july, and she sounds that on the sixth,
but on the fifth, it is gone down to three. so the timing, his name was in the small circle of possibilities. >> brit: politically, she came out to try to stop it. anticipation that he would be the nominee. so i think that is unmistakably true. and of course, there is the question of why the democrats didn't react with more credence to what she was saying, why they did what they did. good faith versus bad faith. that argument has gone on forever. this process has been so ugly and so nasty. and institutionally. nobody. >> martha: we are going to take a quick break. one minute, and we will be right backi'.
>> this is a fox news alert. continuing coverage of the brett kavanaugh hearings. we heard earlier from dr. christine blasey ford. momentarily, we'll see judge kavanaugh walking through the hallways, getting to his seat where he will stand up and defend himself and what he's said under oath already that he did not do and he was not there and he did not know about. >> martha: yeah. we're expecting he's going to walk through the hallway in just a couple minutes. spear supposed to get underway at 3:00 p.m. the activity is beginning. it looks like we're moments away from this extraordinary moment from him. he has to be nervous. you know, he's a sitting judge in the second highest court in the land right now. if this doesn't go well for you, he won't only have a problem
with the job he wants but what he has now. the consequences are enormous. >> bret: it's fascinating. you think about what sheldon whitehouse said in this hearing. he said i'm not going to relent even if he gets on the court. in other words, moving forward with impeachment proceedings perhaps afterwards. marie, that is something for democrats to say we don't care if this happens. we're going to continue to fight. if you he can't be on the supreme court, he can't be on the second highest court in the land. >> martha: this afternoon doesn't depend on how brett kavanaugh does, it depends on how the democrats do. right now they're in a position that they've seen a witness that appears credible. if the democrats come in and they are measured and they look like they're looking for the truth, that will go a long way with the american people. >> bret: what do you really think will happen? if the they show boat, bring up things that have to