Skip to main content

tv   MSNBC Live With Craig Melvin  MSNBC  September 27, 2018 10:00am-11:00am PDT

10:00 am
did track down the senator and he her reactions, it is compelling and emotional, obviously anyone watching has to feel the same way. so we know these things can change dramatically. we know the wrap-up of her questioning and subsequently the drama of his appearance, but up until now, the credibility of her testimony is just unparalleled. >> 1:00 p.m. hour has just rooived. we're in the middle of the break in the senate judiciary committee hearing of dr. christine blasey ford. if you've been watching, then you know it is a very choppy proceeding. they are -- they are staying within their custom and tradition, going from democrat to republican, back again. the republican senators have donated their time to the
10:01 am
designated questioner, the sex crimes expert from the state of arizona. the democrats are going individually and taking their time. some of them giving more statements than q & a. joyce vance, to mimi's point, which is so important, there is now, speaking of dichotomies, this yawning gap between the brett kavanaugh that he has insisted he is, and put forward in media appearance, and the brett kavanaugh we are seeing and hearing portrayed. >> that's absolutely right. and the answer to closing that gap is his best friend, mark judge, who hasn't been subpoenaed today, who wrote a letter saying that he didn't want to have his life disrupted anymore so he wouldn't present himself for sworn testimony. he will have to testify. it will have to be under oath. and as mimi points out, it's very interesting. does he go ahead and confirm his friend's version of events? or does he finally complete the outreach that dr. ford tried to make with him during this event where she says she locked eyes
10:02 am
with him and thought he might help her. you know, will he finally, from across the years, come forth and tell the story and receive some kind of redemption for what he did? >> people have been wherever they can, watching this coverage today on social media, a ton of pictures of commercial airlines where every television set in the seatback is tuned to these hearings. there have already been some indelible moments. one of them having to do with an indelible image in the mind of dr. ford. this happened during questioning with senator leahy. let's take a look. >> what is the strongest memory you have? the strongest memory of the incident? something you cannot forget. take whatever time you need. >> indelible. in the hippocampus is the
10:03 am
laughter, the uproarious laughter between the two, and they're having fun at my expense. >> you never have forgot than laughter? you've never forgotten them laughing at you? >> they were laughing with each other. >> and you were the object of the laughter? >> i was underneath one of them while the two laughed, two friends having a really good time with one another. >> last night, the republican staff of this committee released to the media a time line that shows that they've interviewed two people who claimed they were the ones who actually assaulted you. i'm asking you to address this new defense of mistaken identity directly. dr. ford, with what degree of certainty do you believe brett kavanaugh assaulted you?
10:04 am
>> 100%. >> 100%. >> joyce vance, that's a tough moment to recover from if you're on the other side of this. >> and that's their strategy. they'll try to poke holes in her identification. they've set that up. there were reports overnight that not one but two individuals had come forward saying that they believed that they were the individual who perpetrated these outs against dr. ford. of course, they're anonymous. they haven't presented themselves for sworn testimony and any prosecutor or cop will tell you that any time you have a crime, people come out of the woodwork, claiming participation in some capacity in those events. so it remains to be seen whether or not they can make out a case of mistaken eidentity. she is crystal clear on her identification. she isn't it just say it's 100%, she give us reasons throughouter it, throughout her testimony to
10:05 am
believe her. >> mimi, are there unasked questions of dr. ford in your mind? >> no. if i were one of the democrats, i would say enough, we've put her through enough. i know they're not going to do that. i know that there's a bit of a show going on here at this point. i understand it. there is public opinion to be won over here. she's been through enough. she's put forth her story so credibly. she's been asked numerous times, is there anything else you remember? the prosecutor is trying to ask her that in a way to box her in. so in case she remembers something later, it can't possibly be true. i think dr. ford was careful, as she should be, to say basically this is what i remember now. if you ask me other questions, things might come to mind. we were saying, you know, we're counting something tomorrow about what happened here. well, remember the important parts. remember that andrea was wearing a black dress and she was sitting to my left but i won't necessarily remember what time it was when she walked in the door. i'll remember the important things. and if someone asked me a question and said was it about
10:06 am
12:30 when she came in because that's when they took a break? yes, that's right, now i remember. that is how the human memory works. it's obvious to prosecutors who have put on witnesses and gotten them to remember things, okay, was it before or after september 11th, 2001? that's a prosecutor question that they use to try to place acts that people can't remember. people tend to remember in big moments like that. not in minor details until they're reminded of it. i think this is such a good example of that. i think also to go back, again, to what -- what is going on here now. kavanaugh is going to testify and, i don't know, maybe he'll somehow redeem himself. i can't imagine how he could come across as credible after this. as everyone has said, as dan and joyce have said, think there's great perjury risk for him here. no matter what happens with this nomination, think what all of us are saying is this has become so much bigger.
10:07 am
remember, donald trump, over and over now, on twitter, on tv, has basically said she was a liar because she didn't come forward right away and didn't report it, and that is just so clearly not true. i think women and men everywhere are saying, you know, you have to take and you're can't call us a liar and you have to listen to us and you can't just try and sweep it under the rug. >> daniel goldman who joins us as well, daniel, if you were appointed questioner of kavanaugh for the afternoon session, what would be the short list of questions you would want answered? >> well, it depends what side you are. >> yes. so we're learning. >> if i'm rachel mitchell right now, i think i would spend the rest of my time questioning dr. ford by reading green eggs and ham. she's not getting anywhere. this is just making things worse. building her credibility.
10:08 am
if for questioning brett kavanaugh, think the only thing that he can try to do is salvage his -- not even his credibility, but a little bit his reputation. and the problem he runs into is he has not done that to this point. his denials have been so complete and so blanket that he has left himself no wiggle room to say, to empathize with her and say this was terrible. i had no idea that, you know, you felt this way or that anything like this happened. i never intended it. but that ship has sailed long ago. and what we're watching here was clearly i think from the republican members of the senate judiciary committee, an attempt to set up a dynamic where they could say it's a he said/she said thing from 36 years ago, what are we going to do? there was no proof it occurred, et cetera. so let's just barrel forward
10:09 am
with this vote because it shouldn't derail it. but what we saw so far this morning is that that is not going to work. and the thing that jumps out to everyone, and it doesn't -- you don't need to be a former prosecutor to recognize the elephant in the room, which is mark judge, why was he not called? and i do think it is very intertwined that mark judge was not subpoenaed and there was no fbi investigation. because if there was an fbi investigation, it would automatically include mark judge. i suspect that mark judge has enough bad stuff or at least indicated he has stuff that will run counter to his very good friend's nomination process, that they cannot withstand him to be interviewed by the fbi or testify. and so this was a middle ground to sort of skirt the issue, is really backfiring in their face. >> i'm just told from the senate corridor, dan, where garrett haake is standing by, to talk to us, that senator graham in the
10:10 am
middle of a scrum of media, this one just said to kacie hunt, he believes kavanaugh will be confirmed. let's listen in. >> -- took a polygraph and they didn't tell us until september 26th. all i can deal with is what's in front of me. i've got a guy who adamantly denies this. anyone who knows him in a real way say this is not the guy i know. i've got dr. ford who can't tell me the time and the place. and we'll see what happens. >> are you going to vote tomorrow? >> will this be enough for some reasons not to vote for her? >> let me put it this way, to my republican colleagues. if this becomes the new standard, where you have an accusation for weeks. you drop it right before the hearing. you withhold from the committee a chance to do this in a professional timely fashion. when they publicly say that their goal is to delay the vote, get the senate back in 2018, to
10:11 am
make sure he can't fill the seat, they're publicly saying that, i don't want to reward that kind of behavior. think we've been very fair. to my republican colleagues, if you can, ignore everything in this record, looking at allegation that's 35 years old, that's uncertain for time, place, date and no corroboration, if that's enough for you, god help us as republicans. because this happens to us. it never happens to them. let me tell you, my democratic friends, if this is the new norm, you better watch out for your nominees. >> thank you, senator graham. >> 13 years ago -- >> kacie hunt in the hallway. over to garrett haake, who's been listening to this and getting reaction himself in the hallway of, garrett, a certain member of our group here in new york just said this is the united states. i covered -- the united states senate, i covered for years. >> yes, uncharted territory
10:12 am
across the board. listening to gram there, that sound bite could have come from any day this week. he's been judge kavanaugh's most vocal defender in the senate, making exactly this point over and over and over again. that if a person's career can end or life can end based on an accusation without proof, as he sees it, everybody's going down in the united states senate, and having been in the room for the last hour or so, graham has been visibly annoyed by these proceedings as they've gone on. we all heard him interject several times over last hour or so. even when the cameras weren't on him, he was fidgeting in his chair, looking armd the ro ing . he's made his feelings about this entire exercise abundantly clear. other colleagues are having a different reaction. i can tell you. that room, it's small, it's packed, it's claustrophobic. even folks who are normally very chatty, including senator kennedy, from louisiana, you know, just put his arm around my
10:13 am
shoulder and said "i got no moment." you know, nothing they wanted to say about this. people were leaving ashen-faced. that's not to say no one had anything to say. i spoke to orrin hatch. asked him whether he thought dr. ford was credible. in his answer, he said, it's too early to make those kinds of determinations but she's a good witness, articulate, she's an attractive person, but i think it's early to make those determinations. that comment there, a little bit of evidence as to why republicans wanted to make sure they had an outside prosecutor asking these questions in the room today. >> yes, well put, garrett haake. andrea mitchell? >> well, you know, garrett's right there and he's seeing it and witnessing it in real time. lindsey graham has been the president's bodyguard on capitol hill for quite some time, which was a quick conversion, as senator mccain became more and more indisposed and eventually
10:14 am
passed. lindsey graham has defended president on almost every issue. it's raised a lot of questions in broader circles. i was part of an interview with senator kennedy from louisiana, and he said, even though he was supporting kavanaugh, he said, i'm going to keep an oop oppen i want to see what she has to say. we both afterwards said this guy can be persuaded by an effective testimony. so i think that, you know, mitch mcconnell is absolutely planning to, you know, plow ahead, as he said, and rally his troops, but they had a very, very long tuesday caucus meeting, much longer than their usual lunches. we know from subsequent reporting that there were some members of the senate caucus who were saying we've got to get more information, with these other questions being raised. there are some republicans who are really uncomfortable and all they need is one. you know for this thing to go down. >> as we talk to you about this,
10:15 am
i want to just show pictures of ben sasse shaking the hand of dr. ford right here, this earlier moment he submitted his questions, his question time will be used by ms. mitchell. your reaction to senator graham's comments. >> it's astounding to me. he's clearly not listening. i mean this is not -- what he just said is not what he just saw. he's saying essentially still i don't believe her because she doesn't remember the exact date, exact address and exact time of an assault many, many years ago. but she does, as i've said, i sound a little bit like a broken record, but i'll say it again, maybe senator graham will hear, she remembers what is important. she does remember the general time frame. she remembers the year. she's trying to remember a more precise time by asking for the safeway records that none one will give her. and no one is asking anyone to believe just based on her
10:16 am
statement. do the investigation then. you can't stand and in the same breath say we're not going to bring in the other witnesses, we're not going to look for evidence, but we don't believe her because she's not specific enough. it's so beyond hypocritical, that makes no sense. this doomsday scenario that i guess no man will ever be confirmed to the supreme court because women will be coming out of the woodwork with false accusations, i mean, that has not happened. this is happening to brett kavanaugh for a reason is my opinion. and the consistent stories that you're hearing, not just dr. ford, but this pattern, it is happening to him because this is who he was. it may not be who he still is, but it is who he was and that is relevant. this is a job application. if he didn't want this to come out, if people don't want this to come out about their lives, then go apply for a job that's less public and doesn't require the public trust because these kinds of jobs, we de serve to know. >> kelly o'donnell, having covered congress for many years,
10:17 am
standing by at the white house. i know a lot of this must seem familiar to you. >> very much so. when you look inside a hearing, you're seeing a process that i watched upclose for many years. part of what is notable today is by outsourcing to rachel mitchell. the questions, one of the effects in the next six weeks is there will be no clip that can be used in an advertisement for any of the senators on the republican side that is up for re-election. cruz comes to mind as one of them. by outsourcing to rachel mitchell who is very experienced in this area, you're getting a long-form narrative eliciting the testimony from ford. as your discussion pointed out, there's lots of ways where the questioning is reinforcing what people will perceive to be her credibili credibility. in some ways, by doing that, by allowing the viewer to watch her, to assess her credibility, it has an impact on all of the people who would be calling the offices of the senators on both
10:18 am
sides of the aisle to try to influence the vote. when you go from a case where republicans have said in the earlier iteration of any allegation coming forward, it's a smear campaign, to, today, when they're seeing a living, breathing person telling her story in a way that many people are finding credible, it allows the time for the absorption of how people assess this in order to, if, in fact, there will be votes that peel away, as andrea was discussing, potentially john kennedy, based on his comments, or others. lindsey graham has been the pit bull for the president on this nomination. lots of other senators are not in that position. so they've had a chance to not have to interact directly with this witness. so there's no awkward video moment that will live for two generations. if you're a c-span fan like i am, the entire anita hill hearing just replayed last night. and it also allows for republicans to take this in and prepare, if it comes to a point where the president decides to make a replacement, they have
10:19 am
put a predicate down for her believability. republicans may come forward and still want to press ahead. if there's a vote tomorrow, remember, that's step one. it's a committee vote. the full senate must decide this and the margin is incredibly narrow. we're only partway here. kavanaugh must come forward and must address these issues. but there are some aspects of this that also may not be evident. the whole issue of flying, part of that is there were people around ford who were saying she could not appear until today because she had to drive across the country. that was not the witness. that was people in advocacy for her. that's about the trying to push this back tactically between the two parties. of course, democrats would like to see this happen as late as possible because the midterms are six weeks away. republicans had wanted to get it through as quickly as possible. everything's changed with testimony. people will have to assess her credibility and her powerful way of presenting herself is something that each individual
10:20 am
senator and all the people who call their offices and all of the people who donate to their campaigns and all of the people in their home communities, editorial board, at their local paper, all of that is being assessed in real time right now. so there are aspects of what's playing out that may seem confusing at one level but also speak to the underlying strategy of what's going on. the fear of flying questions were about did she have ongoing lifetime trauma, but it was also about why did this hearing happen on thursday if she was going to fly. that's something that republicans have been pressing at, believing that democrats tried to slow-walk this. that's all up for debate, but that's part of what i've been observing. >> kelly o'brien. we can just about see the window of press secretary sarah huckabee sanders, andrea mitchell, how interesting it would be to watch the coverage in there of the context of the west wing. because to kelly's point, you have rachel mitchell.
10:21 am
her very presence is intended to say nothing to see here. i am the republicans on this committee address your comments and questions to me. >> sarah sanders is watching, what the president of the united states is watching, and he left himself some interesting wiggle room in that lengthily news conference yesterday to hallie jackson's questions. said, you know, i could change my mind, but he did acknowledge under pressure that he is watching this as someone accused, he says, falsely, by multiple women. now other people in the me too era and other people, voters, nonvoters alike, see him in a different context. the way he sees himself is as a victim. despite the nondisclosure agreements and the tape with michael cohen and the rest. so he sees himself identifying with judge kavanaugh in an emotional way. interesting that the people preparing this witness, judge kavanaugh, in nine hours one
10:22 am
day, as peter alexander was reporting, and hours and hours the other day, included bill shine, a former fox executive who left under a cloud because of all those allegations and, you know, the -- don mcgahn who ignored the staff secretary's domestic dispute, abuse allegations when he was plyi iag for clearances. the lack of a real filter inside that white house is another issue. >> reading from steve schmidt, who renounced his membership in the republican party. probably a good thing. the gop members are putting on a clinic for political cowardice. will not one of them, while watching a hectoring and minimally prepared rachel mitchell harass dr. ford step up and take back their time and denounce this kangaroo court? on that note, we'll pause our coverage, take a break.
10:23 am
when we come back, senators will start filtering back in to the judiciary committee hearing room. a smaller hearing room than the first couple of days of the kavanaugh hearings. chosen apparently by design, to keep the head count of the gallery down, but it is causing renewed focus, a very intimate backdrop for the intimate stories we are hearing today. our live coverage continues right after this. ®! ♪ (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®! ♪
10:24 am
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.
10:25 am
at&t provides edge-to-edge intelligence, covering virtually every part of your healthcare business. so that if she has a heart problem & the staff needs to know, they will & they'll drop everything can you take a look at her vitals? & share the data with other specialists yeah, i'm looking at them now. & they'll drop everything hey. & take care of this baby yeah, that procedure seems right. & that one too. at&t provides edge to edge intelligence. it can do so much for your business, the list goes on and on. that's the power of &. & when your patient's tests come back... i couldn't catch my breath. it was the last song of the night. it felt like my heart was skipping beats. they said i had afib. what's afib? i knew that meant i was at a greater risk of stroke. i needed answers. my doctor and i chose xarelto®
10:26 am
to help keep me protected from a stroke. once-daily xarelto®, a latest-generation blood thinner significantly lowers the risk of stroke in people with afib not caused by a heart valve problem. warfarin interferes with at least 6 of your body's natural blood-clotting factors. xarelto® is selective, targeting just one critical factor. for afib patients well managed on warfarin, there is limited information on how xarelto® compares in reducing the risk of stroke. don't stop taking xarelto® without talking to your doctor, as this may increase your risk of stroke. while taking, you may bruise more easily, or take longer for bleeding to stop. xarelto® can cause serious, and in rare cases, fatal bleeding. it may increase your risk of bleeding if you take certain medicines. get help right away for unexpected bleeding or unusual bruising. do not take xarelto® if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. before starting, tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures and any kidney or liver problems. learn all you can to help protect yourself from a stroke. talk to your doctor about xarelto®.
10:27 am
we're back. we continue to keep an eye on the hearing room and we'll show you what we're looking at and that is staff and senators returning from this break. it's become a cliche now that senator grassley likes things running on time. sometimes he cannot corral all of the members and get them back in. but we won't miss any of the testimony. we are joined here in new york and happy to be joined by linda fairstein, the veteran sex crimes prosecutor turned author. you've been watching what we've been watching. i wanted to get your reaction to dr. ford and her forth right testimony today. >> it's dazzling. watching her, the pain of watching her, is one thing. but as all of us would say, i've watched all the commentary, it's been great, we always train young progs cusecutors, we take
10:28 am
witnesses as we find them. you don't often find them with us. they come to us with criminal histories and problems of every sort, not able to articulate. to have a witness like this seared, as she says, the memory of this seared in her mind, and to be able -- to hear her explain it, to have written that paper herself, to deliver it. the impact through the screen, i can't even imagine sitting in that room and, and not buying in to every piece of it. yes, she can't remember specifically date, time and place and she'd come to one of us a week after or two weeks aft after, we would have had cops drive her around, work those things out. they are, to me, so minor in the broader context of what we've seen. but her credibility is just overwhelming to me. and i think the last thing i'd say about that, between the time she came forward and her appearance, probably to you, as
10:29 am
to me, many people would say, well what if she's a little crazy? what if she doesn't present well? this is just the full package, as someone said, package for television. but natural. but totally natural. you see the emotion. you see at times when people complimented her, she became so emotional even than how she controlled herself likened to the dignity of anita hill all those years ago, just the dignity and grace with which she presented this terrible story. >> joyce vance, former u.s. attorney, how about taking dr. ford, who comes across as someone who could conceivably be anyone and everyone's friend and neighbor, and then add another layer of a ph.d. in an applied field, so where her humanity leaves off in these various answers often her education kicks in and she's able to answer it at a scientific level.
10:30 am
>> she's a fact witness, but she's also her own built-in expert witness. and you can see how she must have compensated for the stress that this incident imposed upon her by becoming the consummate professional. i think it makes her oeven more believable. you see how she dealt with these events. how she became the strong woman who is ultimately able to come forward. lindsey graham's big complaint about her is she can't tell you when and where it happened so you can't believe her. and perhaps he'll find some folks who will agree without those details she's not credible. but her explanation and the explanation that mimi give, which is what every prosecutor knows, about how memory functions, says when she tells you what's indelibly imprinted on her memory is their laughter, and their laughter at her expense, it's really hard to believe there won't be a couple of republican senators in that room who cannot bring themselves to vote for kavanaugh. >> and mimi, you do law and not politics, but it's going to be
10:31 am
hard for people who have just heard dr. ford, to hear the likes of behilindsaey graham spg the way he did. >> if he was listening, he was listening to some other witness. for me to hear linda fairstein say that dr. ford is such a great witness, linda has probably seen more victims of sexual assault than any other prosecutor in the country. and i am positive that she did not believe every one of them. i mean, you know, just to say i think all of us former prosecutors, you don't have to be a former prosecutor, as dan said, to see how credible she is. lindsey graham, he's just -- he's looking at it or listening to it and just say something else because it doesn't fit his program. it doesn't fit what -- where he wants to go with this, which is keep this on track and, you know, you can do that for so long and it can work when this is -- when you're reading about it, in article, when you're reading letterings.
10:32 am
when you see her testify, to hear his description of it, it's like us looking at the sun and someone saying well, it's cloudy. no, i'm looking at the sun, there's a blue sky. we joke a lot about alternate facts. this shows you the contrast between what lawyers and people who really investigate or gather evidence and why that doesn't work in this alternate fact universe. because when people see it and hear it with their own eye, even with political bends, i have to believe there are people out there who didn't want to believe her but will. there are people who will go a long with lindsay grail. lindsey graham. i believe facts are facts and witnesses are witnesses and seeing it is believing it. >> i'm told there's a still picture from "the washington post" of republicans. this is the republican side of the committee room. closest to the lens is john, no relation, kennedy, of louisiana, and then curl around there, eventually to senator hatch on
10:33 am
the far right. lin linda, this is a rare combination, to my question to joyce, of personality and education and intellect, what we're seeing here. >> very, very rare combination. and as joyce said, the expert witness piece within. did she take that route. did she do the psychological thing to deal with her own trauma, to help her understand why this has impacted her. it's really fascinating. >> yes. joyce, go ahead. we're just watching members of the republican caucus go back in. there's mike lee and jeff flake. >> i was going to say, one point we haven't touched on is her compelling reason for coming forward. and it's not to get revenge it and it's not to help herself, it's to do public service. she felt like senators needed to have this information to make their decision. we have not only the woman who's technically a strij, who's also rebuilt her life as an expert,
10:34 am
but now her motivation for being here, to give information. >> she saw a man's name on the short list to go to the supreme court and she came forward. pat leahy of vermont. let's see if we have any audio on the hallway here. apparently not. the republicans, as you saw, have gone into the entryway and they have filtered into their chairs. the chairman is seated at 1:34 p.m. eastern time. usually a signal to all the other participants, the other senators, to come on in, no one seated on the democratic side, as we've said. the republicans coming in. we don't see dr. ford yet though. it appears rachel mitchell is back at her post. mimi rocca, there's going to come a time here where dr. ford is finished.
10:35 am
and excused. and it's going to be quite a change of tone, tenor, demeanor. the atmospherics in the room when kavanaugh walks in. >> it is. again, you know, having -- remembering how kavanaugh was when he testified originally, i really do not think he is going to fair well. he's just not a credible speaker, when he speaks. i don't know if that's how he normally is or that's how he is when he isn't telling the truth, which is what it seems to me. i do think her sincerity is going to be very striking when he comes out. you're going to sort of see it even more. again, when he testified originally, when he was being asked questions that he had obviously rehearsed, he sounded good and prepared and, you know, reasonableable. when he was asked questions by senator harris he, you know, pretended to not know the name of of a law firm, cakasowitz,
10:36 am
which one of his very good friends worked at. it's just a moment that everyone came back to that this is not credible, this is not believable. i think he's given us already so many reasons to not believe him. now when you see him testify after someone like dr. ford, who is so sincere, it's really going to be striking. just one more point about lindsey graham, you know, again he has this parade of horribles of what's going to happen in the world if this nomination doesn't go through. it didn't happen to neil gorsuch. >> no. >> again, this is happening to brett kavanaugh for a reason, because he did these things -- that is my sincere belief. >> i've heard of voice of senator grassley, coca-cola fans around the country rejoicing that they have an aficionado in dr. ford. let's go back into the hearing room. >> i'm ready. >> okay. senator. >> thank you, mr. chairman.
10:37 am
is it your intent to cede all republican's time to your prosecutor rather than they themselves ceding their time to her? >> yes. >> we all know that the prosecutor, even though this clearly is not a criminal proceeding, is asking dr. ford all kinds of questions about what happened before and after, but basically not during it is a tack. the prosecutor should know that sexual assault survivors often do not remember per riral information such as what happened before or after the traumatic event. and yet she will persist in asking these questions all to undermine the memory and basically the credibility of dr. ford. but we all know dr. ford's memory of the assault is very clear. dr. ford, the republican's prosecutor has asked you all kinds of questions about who you called and when, asking details that would be asked in a cross
10:38 am
examination of a witness in a criminal trial. but this is not a criminal proceeding. this is a confirmation proceeding. i think i know what she's trying to get at. i'll just ask you very plainly, dr. ford, is there a political motivation for your coming forward with your account of the assault by brett kavanaugh? >> no, and i'd like to reiterate, again, i was trying to get the information to you while there was still a list of other -- >> thank you. >> -- what looked like equally qualified candidates. >> and yet they're not here to testify. dr. ford, i'd like to join my colleagues who have thanked you for coming forward today. and i -- and we all admire you for what you're doing. i understand why you have come forward. you wanted us and the american people to know what you knew about the character, the character of the man we are considering for a lifetime appointment to the supreme
10:39 am
court. i want to take a moment also to note the significant personal sacrifices you've made to come forward to share your traumatic experience with us and the american people. you've had to move. you've had death threats. all manner of basically revictimization experiences -- but by coming forward, you have inserted the question of character in this nomination and hopefully back into american life. and rightfully so. we should be made to face who it is we're putting in the places of decision making in this country. we should look the question scare in t square in the face. does character matter? do our values, our real values, about what is right and what is wrong and whether we treat fellow human beings with dignity and respect? do they matter anymore?
10:40 am
i believe they do. i believe the reaction we've seen to this coverage, right now, and your courage all over this country shows us that we're not alone. you're not alone. that women and men all across america are disgusted and sick and tired of the way basic human decency has been driven from our public life. the president assaulting women. he sip raeparates from their pa. he takes basic health care protections from those who need them most. he stands behind a man who stands creditbly accused of a horrible act. i want to thank you for coming forward. mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent that six items consisting of various statements, letters, fact sheets, posts are inserted into the record. >> is that one request or do you want me to wait for six? >> well, i have six separate items. >> okay. >> i can go over them for you.
10:41 am
>> okay, no -- >> i would like to -- >> let me not interrupt you. your request is accepted without objection. >> thank you. and i would like to read from a -- an item that has already been entered into the record. this is from a letter from the national task force to end sexual and domestic violence. the letter states, and i quote this letter, this moment has become a crucible. it's a test of our progress. do we start by believing victims of sexual assault and treating them with dignity or don't we? so far, senate leaders are failing that test. prejudging the outcome of the hearing. sympathizing with her perpetrator. attacking her credibility. they send a message to every victim of sexual violence that their pain doesn't matter, that they do not deserve justice, and that for them, fair treatment is out of reach. this will only serve to drive
10:42 am
victims into the shadows and further embolding abusers. once again, dr. ford, thank you very much. this is a moment for our country. mahalo. >> senator, miss mitchell for senator crepele. >> good afternoon. >> hi. >> when we left off, we were still talking about the polygraph and i believe you said it hasn't been paid for yet, is that correct? >> let me put an end to this mystery. her lawyers have paid for her polygraph. >> as is routine. >> as is routine. >> dr. ford, do you expect the price of that polygraph to be passed on to you? >> i'm not sure yet. i haven't taken a look at all of the costs involved in this.
10:43 am
we've relocated now twice, so i haven't kept track of all of that paperwork, but i'm sure i have a lot of work to do to catch up on all of that later. >> i get you have a lot going on and you've had that for several months. but is it your understanding that someone else is going to assist you with some of these fees, including the cost forever your polygraph? >> i'm aware that there's been several go fund me sites that i haven't had a chance to figure out how to manage those because i've never had one -- >> and i'm sorry -- >> -- done for me. >> -- several what? >> go fund me sites that have raised money primarily for our security detail so i'm not even quite sure how to collect that money or how to distribute it yet. i haven't been able to focus on that. >> okay. >> in your testimony this morning, you stated that senator feinstein sent you a letter on august 31st of this year.
10:44 am
is that right? >> august 31st. let me see. i sent her a letter on july 30th, and i don't have the date. i'd have to pull up my e-mail to find out the date of her e-mail to me saying -- it was right before the hearings that she was going to maintain the confidentiality of the letter. >> say that again, it was right before the hearings what? >> that's my memory, but i can look it up for you if you like. i can pull it up on my e-mail. >> i just want to make sure i understood what you said. >> that document's been turned over to -- in response to a request for documents, you have it. >> thank you, counsel. i want to make sure i understood what you said. was it your understanding it was
10:45 am
going to be kept con fidential p until right before the hearing? >> it was my understanding it was going to be kept confidential, period. >> period? okay. between your polygraph on august the 7th and your receipt of the letter from senator feinstein, did you or anyone on your behalf speak to any member of congress or congressional staff about these allegations? >> i personally did not. >> so my question was, did you or anybody on your behalf? >> i don't -- what do you mean, did someone speak for me? >> somebody that worked, is working with you or helping you? did somebody at your behest, on your behalf, speak to somebody in congress or staff? >> i'm not sure. >> okay. >> i'm not sure how those exchanges went but i didn't
10:46 am
speak to anyone. >> okay. is it possible that somebody did? >> i think so. it would be possible. i'm guessing it would be possible. but i don't know. >> okay. >> excuse me, you've asked her not to guess and now you're asking her what's possible so i think if you want to ask her what she knows, you should ask her what she knows. >> is that an objection, counsel? >> it is an objectioobjection. >> i'll have the chair rule on that. >> i don't know what the -- understand -- [ inaudible comments ] >> -- unless there's a legal reason for not answering it on advice of your counsel. >> so i don't totally understand the question but i didn't speak with anyone during that time frame other than my counsel. >> okay. you've said repeatedly that you
10:47 am
did not think that letter that was wrote on july 30th was going to be released to the public, is that correct? >> correct. >> okay. is it true that you did not authorize it to be released at any time? >> correct. >> okay. beside your attorneys, did you provide -- you provided that letter to senator feinstein, is that correct? >> i provided her a letter on july 30th. >> we're talking about the july 30th letter. >> okay, okay. >> and you provided that letter to senator feinstein, correct? is that a questiyes? >> yes. >> and you provided the letter to representative eshoe to deliver to feinstein? >> yes. >> besides those two individuals, representative eshoo and senator feinstein and your attorney, did you provide that letter to anyone else? >> no. >> do you know how that letter became public?
10:48 am
>> no. >> after that letter was made public or leaked, did you reach back out to "the washington post"? >> i reached out to the washington -- well, they were continuously reaching out to me and i was not responding. but the time that i did respond and agree to do the sit-down was once the reporters started showing up at my home and at my workplace. >> okay. >> thank you, mr. chairman. dr. ford, thank you for being here. i just want to remind everyone that this is not a courtroom. this is not a legal proceeding. you are here under your own volition. and though the prosecutor has
10:49 am
been engaged here to represent my colleagues, you're here, as you said, out of a civic duty. and i want to join my colleagues. it's really more than that. you know, our founding documents talk about civic duty or the declaration of independence talks about for this country pledging your lives, your fortunes and your sacred honor. anybody who's read your testimony knows what you've had to sacrifice by coming forward. your life has been up-ended. you have received vicious hateful threats, death threats. you've had to move out of your family home to some expense i imagine to you and your family. you've had to engage security to some expense. you've had to deal with incredible challenges. and what's amazing, and i want to join my colleagues in thanking you for your courage and bravery in coming forward, all to help us deal with one of
10:50 am
the most important obligations a senator has, to advise and consent on one of our branches of government, the highest court in the land, an individual going before a lifetime had a lot of folks on that list and your fear was this individual who assaulted you could ascends to that seat. that's correct, right? >> correct. >> it is correct that you have given a lot of resources, taken a lot of threats to come forward, correct? >> correct. >> assault op your dignity and humanity. >> absolutely. >> how has it affected your children? >> they are doing fairly well. thank you for asking. >> your husband? >> doing fairly well for asking. we have a very supportive community. >> that's good to hear. >> i want to use a different word for your courage because this is more, as much as this hearing is about a supreme court justice, the reality is by you
10:51 am
coming forward, you are affecting the culture of our country. we have a wonderful nation, an incredible culture but there are dark elements that allow unconsciousable levels of unacceptable levels of sexual assault and harassment that are affecting girls and boys and men and women from big media outlets to factory floors to servers in restaurants to our intimate spaces in homes and apartments. i stepped out during the break and was di lluged from friends across the country that there are hundreds of thousands of people watching your testimony and note after note i got people in tears feeling pain and anguish. not just yours but their own who have not come forward. you are opening up to open air hurt and pain that goes on across this country.
10:52 am
for that, the word i would use is nothing short of heroic because what you're doing for for our nation germane to one of the most sacred nations in our offices is you are speaking truth that this country needs to understand. how we deal with survivors who come forward right now is unacceptable. the way we deal with this, unfortunately, allows for the continued darkness of this culture to exist. your brilliance shining light under this speaking your truth is nothing short of heroic. to the matter at hand, one of my colleagues who i have a lot of respect for and i consider him a friend, went to the senate floor and spoke truth to both sides of the political aisle. senator flake said this is a lifetime appointment and this is said to be a deliberative body. in the interest of due diligence and fairness, her claims must be
10:53 am
fully aired and considered. i agree with him. you've asked for things that would give a full airing from corroborating witnesses to be called. you submitted to an intrusive polygraph test. can you answer for me how do you feel that all the things that could have been done thoroughly to help this deliberating body have not been honored in this so called investigation? >> i wish that i could be more helpful and that others could be more helpful and that we could collaborate in a way that would get more information. >> thank you very much. mr. chairman, i'd like to introduce for the record seven letters from land of legal, from mormon women from ethical government. youth lead organizations around this country, the international
10:54 am
unions, bricklayers, allied craft workers. a letter from 295 survivors in support of dr. ford and a letter from 1,600 men, it's a kpacampa in support of dr. ford. those who want to assert, men and women, that survivors of sexual violence are not o p opportunist and coming forward with courage and heart to speak their truth and try to speak the scourge of sexual violence. >> without objection, so ordered. mr. mitchell for senator tillis. >> dr. ford, in choosing attorneys, did anyone help you with the choice on who to choose? >> various people referred me to lawyers that they knew in the washington, d.c. area. as you know i grew up in this
10:55 am
area so i asked some family members and friends and they referred me to divorce attorneys that might know somebody that might know somebody and i ended up interviewing several law firms from the d.c. area. >> did anybody besides friends and family refer you to any attorneys? >> i think that the staff of dianne feinstein office suggested the possibility of some attorneys. >> including the two that are sitting beside you? >> not both of them, no. >> okay. we've heard a lot about fbi investigations, when did you, personally, first request an fbi investigati
10:56 am
investigati investigation? >> i guess when i first started talking about the possibility of hearing. i was hoping there would be a more thorough investigation. >> would that investigation have been something that you would have submitted to an interview? >> i would be happy to cooperate with the fbi, yes. >> would you have been happy to submit to an interview by staffer members from this committee? >> absolutely. >> okay. you mentioned some go fund me accounts. besides those are there any other efforts outside of your own personal finances to pay for your legal fees or any of the costs incured? >> it's my understanding that some of my team working on a pro bono basis. i don't know the exact details. there are members of the community in palo alto that have the means to contribute to help
10:57 am
me with the security detail, et cetera. >> have you been provided -- >> both of her counsel are doing this pro bono. we are not being paid. we have no expectation of being paid. >> thank you, counsel. have you seen any of the questions that i was going to ask you today? >> no. >> have you -- you've been asked a few questions by other people as well. have you seen any of those questions in advance? >> no. >> have you been told them in advance? >> no. >> like wise with me questions. have you been told my questions in advance? >> definitely not. >> you mentioned about some possible information sump as when mark judge worked at the supermarket. i want to ask you about someone else. you mentioned there was a classmate who was really sort of the the connection between you and brett kavanaugh.
10:58 am
who was this person? >> i think that case with mr. waylan looking at my linkedin page. i don't feel like it's right for us to be talking about that. >> i'm not trying to blame anyone. i want to know who the common friend is. >> the person that mr. waylan was trying to say looked like mr. kavanaugh. >> how long did you know this person? >> maybe for a couple of months we socialized. he was a member of the same country club and i knew his younger brother as well. >> a couple months before this took place? >> yes. >> how would you characterize your relationship with him both before and after this took place, this person? >> he was somebody that we used the phrase, i went out with.
10:59 am
i wouldn't say with. i went out with for a few months. that's how we termed it at the time. after that we were distant friends and ran into each other periodically at columbia country club. i didn't see him often. i saw his brother and him several times. >> was this person the only common link between you and judge kavanaugh? >> he's the only one i would be able to name right now. that i would like to not name but you know who i mean. there are other members of columbia country club that were common friends or there were more acquaintances of mine and mr. kavanaugh. >> can you describe all of the other social interactions that you had with mr. kavanaugh? >> briefly, yes, i can. there were -- during freshman
11:00 am
and sophomore year, particularly my sophomore year which would have been his junior year, four to five parties that my friends and i attended that were attended also by him. >> okay. did anything happen at these events like we're talking about? besides the time we're talking about. sg you c . >> you can answer that question. >> there was no sexual assault at any of those events. is that what you're asking? >> yes or anything inappropriate. >> maybe we can go into more detail. i feel time pressure on that question. i'm happy to answer in further detail if you want me to. >> i'm sorry. go ahead and finish answering your question. >> did you want me to describe those parties? >> should we save this


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on