, ms. mitchell, tried to do their work. but after dr. ford completed her testimony and left the building, it was a different story. last night on a tv show, one senator said, and i quote, ms. ford has got a problem. in destroying judge kavanaugh's life won't fix her problem. how could you listen to her honest and direct testimony and draw that conclusion? judge kavanaugh's opening statement yesterday was filled with raw emotion. looking at his family and friends gathered to support him, one could not help but feel as our colleague senator flake reminded us, that this undertaking is deeply personal and there is humanity to reconcile on both sides of the ledger. i can feel the intensity of what he's experienced over the last few weeks, but i could not understand how judge kavanaugh could say that he, quote, bore no ill will towards dr. ford, then called her charges quote, a calculated, orchestrated political hit. citing, quote, apparent pent up anger about president trump and his 2016 election, and quote, revenge on behalf of the clintons. revenge on behalf of the clintons. this l

happened. we know that the prosecutor republicans brought in, ms. mitchell, has said she would not have enough to take this case to even get a search warrant. do you disagree with that assessment as a former prosecutor? >> first of all i want to make clear, this is not a criminal trial. kellyanne and i agree on that. this was a job interview. so many of us have already decided because of this nominee's expansive view of presidential power that he doesn't belong on this court to be hand picked by a president who has continually undermined the fbi, said he wants to fire everyone from the attorney general to the deputy attorney general. we have issues with putting someone on the bench with those views. a number of us said we were going to vote against him. what this was about was the dignity of the court and the senate, that we get to the bottom of the facts. i've not looked at the evidence in that way because i haven't been able to interview the witnesses that are there. but what i did find was that she seemed very compelling. she answered the questions with grace and dignity, and al

ms. mitchell was able to develop, we know that for obvious reasons doctor ford's account has some inconsistencies and gaps regarding the timing, location, and details about the events. i think we need to listen to her. we need to take her story into account. as i said, i want to treat her the same way i would want my mother, sister, or daughters treated under certain circumstances. but we can ignore the inconsistencies. we also can't ignore the full throated defense and heartfelt denial of judge kavanaugh. or the testimony that none of this is in the character of judge kavanaugh. we heard that from people dating back to 1982. indeed, as ms. mitchell, professional prosecutor prosecuting sex crimes in arizona, she told us last night that with more than two decades of experience with the kind of case brought forward by ms. ford, she would not file those charges against the defendant. there simply is not enough evidence. in fact, the only witnesses identified by doctor ford denied the event occurred. as a matter fact she said she couldn't get a search warrant were an arrest warrant in

recognize that somehow, somewhere she has been exposed to terrible trauma. but it was important for ms. mitchell to ask questions and get answers. so we can do our job i appreciate chairman grassley doing his best to run efficiently as much as that is possible. i said at the firsty hearing after senators would speak over each other and make motions out of order when one senatorde said i am breaking the confidentiality rules. this seems like a hearing by mob rule. not the civility should expect from the united states senate. but chairman grassley has done then best anybody could do under difficult circumstances. this hearing was notot easy for doctor ford or judge kavanaugh. it has been painful for everybody involved. but looking closer to a resolution on this nomination. today with the judiciary committee i'm glad we could pass that nomination to the senate floor. summer saying we are moving too fast. to them i would say it is clear what the objective of the opponents of the nomination is. the objective is delay. delay. delay. some have said their goal is to delay the confirmation past

for ms. mitchell to ask questions to get answers to those questions so we can do our job. i appreciate chairman grassley for doing his best to keep order and running the committee efficiently, as much as that's possible. i said at the first hearing after senators would speak over each other, would endlessly make motions that were out of order, when one senator said i'm breaking the confidentiality rules, i said this seems like a hearing by mob rule. not with the kind of demeanor and civility that you would expect from the united states senate. but i think chairman grassley has done the best anybody could do under difficult circumstances. as i said, this hearing was not easy for either dr. ford or judge kavanaugh. it's been painful for everybody involved. but thankfully we are much closer to a resolution on this nomination. today there was a markup in the judiciary committee, and i'm glad we were able to pass that nomination out of the committee to the senate floor. now, some are saying that we are moving too fast. to them, i would say, it's pretty clear what the objective of

, appropriate way, to elicit facts and information from dr. ford. i thought ms. mitchell did a good job. but to somehow wrap themselves in the normal compassion we would somehow -- that we do feel for somebody in dr. ford's situation and claim that we have -- are not treating her well by pointing out the overtpoliticalization of this process is simply trying to take our eye off the ball. there has been a calculated effort to manipulate this process in a way that is blatantly unfair to dr. ford and to judge kavanaugh. and that's shameful. i said yesterday i think this is one of the darkest days for the united states senate since the mccarthy hearings that occurred back in the '50s. you may recall the comments of one of the lawyers who said i never really gauged your cruelty or recklessness before today. and asked senator mccarthy, have you no sense of decency? i think this process has been cruel and reckless and indecent for both dr. ford and judge kavanaugh. and it did not have to be that way. when we learned yesterday from dr. ford that she did not authorize the release of the letter of jul

thoughtful, appropriate way to elicit facts and information from dr. ford. i thought ms. mitchell did a good job. but to somehow wrap themselves in the normal compassion we would somehow -- that we do feel for somebody in dr. ford's situation and claim that we have -- are not treating her well by pointing out the overt politicalization of this process is simply trying to take our eye off the ball. there has been a calculated effort to manipulate this process in a way that is blatantly unfair to dr. ford and to judge kavanaugh, and that's shameful. i said yesterday i think this is one of the darkest days for the united states senate since the mccarthy hearings that occurred back in the '50s. you may recall the comments of one of the lawyers who said i never really gauged your cruelty or recklessness before today and asked senator mccarthy, have you no sense of decency? i think this process has been cruel and reckless and indecent for both dr. ford and judge kavanaugh, and it did not have to be that way. when we learned yesterday from dr. ford that she did not authorize the release of t

question or confront her, not one. they sat silent as their prosecutor, ms. mitchell, tried do do their work. but after dr. ford completed her testimony and left the building, it was a different story. last night on a tv show, one senator said, and i quote, ms. ford has got a problem in destroying judge kavanaugh's life won't fix her problem. how could you listen to her honest and direct testimony and draw that conclusion? judge kavanaugh's opening statement yesterday was filled with raw emotion. looking at his family and friends gathered to support him, one could not help but feel as our colleague senator flake reminded us, that this undertaking is deeply personal, and there is humanity to reconcile on both sides of the ledger. i can feel the intensity of what he's experienced over the last few weeks. but i could not understand how judge kavanaugh could say that he, quote, bore no ill will towards dr. ford then called her charges, quote, a calculated, orchestrated political hit. citing, quote, apparent pent-up anger about president trump and his 2016 election, and quote, revenge on beh

, ms. mitchell tried to do their work, but after dr. ford completed her testimony and left the building, it was a different story. last night on a tv show one senator said, and i quote, ms. ford has got a problem. and destroying judge kavanaugh's life won't fix her problem. how could you listen to her honest and direct testimony and draw that conclusion. judge kavanaugh's opening statement yesterday was filled with raw emotion. looking at his family and friends gathered to support him, one could not help but feel as our colleague senator flake reminded us, that this undertaking is deeply personal and there is humanity to reconcile on both sides of the ledger. i could feel the intensity of what he has experienced over the last few weeks, but i could not understand how judge kavanaugh could say that he, quote, bore no ill will towards dr. ford, then called her charges a calculated, orchestrated political hit citing apparent pentup anger about president trump and his 2016 presidential election and quote, revenge on behalf of the clintons. revenge on behalf of the clintons. this lo

information from dr. ford. i thought ms. mitchell did a good job. but to somehow wrap themselves in the normal compassion we would somehow, that we do feel for somebody in dr. ford's situation, and claim that we are not treating her well by pointing out the overt politicalization of this process is simply trying to take our eye off the ball. .. shameful. i said yesterday i think this is one of the darkest days for the united states senate since the mccarthy hearings occurred in the 50s. you may recall the comments of one of the lawyers who said i never really gauged your cruelty or recklessness before today. and asked senator mccarthy have you no sense of decency? i think this process has been cruel and reckless and indecent for both doctor ford and brett kavanaugh and it did not have to be that way. when we learned yesterday from doctor ford that she did not authorize the release of the letter of july 30th that she sent to senator feinstein, she did not authorize it, she did not want it leaked but it was leaked. she said the only people that had possession of it were her lawyers, senat

than rachel mitchell. ms. mitchell is a career prosecutor, civil servant with decades of experience investigating and prosecuting sex crimes. she has dedicated her career to seeking justice for survivors of sex-related felonies. most recently rachel was a division chief of the special victims division maricopa county attorneysth office which prosece sex crimes and family violence. then democratic senator, governor janet napolitano previously recognized her as the outstanding arizona sexual assault prosecutor of the year, and she is spent years instructing prosecutors, detectives and child protection workers on how to properly interview victims of sexual assault and abuse. with her aid i look forward to a fair and productive hearing. i understand that there are two of the public allegations. today's hearing was scheduled to, in close consultation with dr. ford's attorneys, and her testimony will be the subject of this hearing. we've been trying to investigate other allegations. at this time we have not had cooperation from attorneys representing other clients. and they have made no a

ms. mitchell doing the questioning, because as bad as ms. mitchell may have been, can you imagine what ted cruz and lindsay graham bearing down on this woman five minutes a piece in five-minute int intra sruls would have looked like? there's a reason why this vote is happening in two hours, because every day that passes more information can come out, like it did today about the july 1st calendar entry. more things like the catholic journal retracting their endorsement, and the american bar association saying let's have an fbi investigation, and one more day closer to the elections. believe me, the folks on this committee are painfully aware of the politics and the fact that we have an election in 43 days. >> in our final seconds of this segment, has there been a sea change in terms of what sexual assault victims can say in public and their credibility and if they are believed and what this means to women? >> in the culture, but i don't think it's happening in the republican party. having her come forward and people saying they believe her and believing something other than what sh

you think, jonathan that it was a good move bringing in ms. mitchell? >> i think it accomplished what the members wanted. steve: right. >> they did not want to be in a position of questioning ford. they were willing to basically give that up opportunity. she was not there, i think, to try to really connect any blows because they didn't want to see those optics. but, you know, it was frustrating for a lot of people dividing this into five minute increments did not allow for any real substantive questioning to occur. steve: okay. so after the 8 or 9 hours of testimony that we saw yesterday later this morning they are probably going to vote. where are we after having watched that? >> i think he did a lot of good for himself. if the vote had been taken after dr. ford's testimony, i think his confirmation would have failed. she was very compelling. there were even some statements from senators saying that they were persuaded. senators that are viewed on the fence. but then he came out and he changed that i do ma'am nic. this was really the two-minute warning in the fourth. and he spar

. look, i was not in favor of ms. mitchell being the one to ask questions, but she was there. as a former prosecutor, i was embarrassed that she as a professional law enforcement sex crimes prosecutor who has worked with victims would partake in this sham. but she was there. and you know what, dr. ford got her story out. and even with ms. mitchell trying to cross-examine her, trying to poke holes in her, trying to show inconsistencies, nothing, zero. they poked no holes that mattered. i mean, i think the biggest one, you know, midway through, was something about, you know, whether she had wanted to fly there or not. totally inconsequential. her story came out clear. she remembered the big picture, the important details. didn't know some minor things. but she explained, and we all know it's common sense that's how human memory works. but when it came time for kavanaugh to testify, and mitchell started doing the same thing -- >> she did. >> she actually was asking him fact-based questions. and he was evasive. >> squirming. >> he couldn't answer them. and they did not want that to hap

includes judge kavanaugh's opening statement d ms. mitchell's questions for judge kavanaugh. ranking member diane feinstein asked her on questions. >>> judge kavanaugh. we welcome you. are you ready? i have a -- i have something i want to clear up from the last meeting that doesn't affect you. so before i swear you, i would like to explain my response to senator kennedy right after the break. at that time i entered into the record the statements of three witnesses dr. ford said were also at the party. these staples were provided to us under penalty of felony by lying -- if you lie to congress. as soon as my team learned the names of three potential witnesses, we reached out requesting an interview. in response all three submitted statements to us denying any knowledge of the gathering, dr. ford described. if we had calls with them we would have invited the minority to join. any time we received any information regarding judge kavanaugh we've sought to immediately follow through and investigate. dr. ford's letter for weeks and the staff told us that they believed it is, quote, highly

democrats say why are you hiding this? why are they hiding that? the other thing that ms. mitchell that that was very telling, she showed that dr. ford flies an awful lot for somebody who doesn't want to fly from california to the east coast when in fact she was in bethany beach, delaware, from august until now. they lied. the democrats lied about where she was. they said she was in california and couldn't get here which is why the committee offered to fly to california to interview her. guess what? if they had flown there, she would have been in delaware. >> laura: she went up to new hampshire -- >> she flew around a lot. >> laura: we'll get to this yearbook stuff in a moment. there was another moment about the polygraph, scott, where she was asked about the polygraph and again, the senators -- the point didn't get nailed on this. i don't understand why. mitchell just was too slow. i don't know. it was like, come on! that whole format was a joke. but she was asked about the polygraph, did anyone record it. and she said, there was a laptop -- where there notes? i think the committee wan

were teenagers. republican committee members hired rachel mitchell, head of the special victims division to ask questions for them. this portion includes judge kavanaugh's opening statement d ms. mitchell's questions for judge kavanaugh. ranking member diane feinstein asked her on questions.

story, that's why we're here. >> mr. chairman -- >> ms. mitchell. >> mr. chairman, i just want to point out what senator whitehouse said, in the anita hill case. >> can we hear from dr. ford? >> george bush ordered the investigation be opened again. >> dr. mitchell, will you p proceed for senator lee? >> thank you mr. chairman. dr. ford, "the washington post" reported in their september 16 article that you did show them therapist notes, is that incorrect? >> i don't remember physically showing her a note. perhaps my counsel did. i don't remember physically showing her my copy of the note. >> okay. >> but i just don't remember. i'm sorry. i have retrieved a physical copy of those medical records. >> okay, thank you. >> you also attended individual therapy. did you show any of those notes to the reporter for "the washington post"? >> again, i don't remember if i showed her, like, something that i summarized or if i just spoke about it. or if she saw it in my counsel's office. i can't -- i don't know for sure. but i certainly spoke with her about the 2013 record with the individual t

for our country. the hollow. >> senator -- ms. mitchell for senator crapo. >> good afternoon. when we left off, we were still talking about the polygraph. i believe you said it hasn't been paid for yet. is that correct? >> let me put an end to this. her lawyers have paid for her polygraph. >> as is routine. >> as is routine. >> dr. ford, do you expect the that polygraph to be passed on to you? >> i'm not sure yet. i haven't taken a look at all the cost involved in this. we have relocated now twice so i haven't kept track of all that paperwork. i'm sure i have aa lot of work o do to catch up on all that later. >> i get you have a lot going on in utah about for several. but is it your understanding that someone elsee is going to assist you with the fees including the cost for yours polygraph. >> i'm aware that there's w been several sites and i haven't had a chance to figure out how to manage those because i've never had one. >> i'm sorry, what? >> sites that have raised money for her security detail. i'm not even quite sure how to collect t that money and how to distribute it yet. i ha

se started -- ms. mitchell started asking him questions in the same vein and way that she asked of dr. ford, but then senator lindy graham took th microphone and made a very partisan case againste democrats on the committee, turned it completely away from dr. ford, completely away from the events that happened that night and on to the way in whch this story got in to the press, how it dropped at the last minute, and then, from then on,r single other questioner ass a republican, who then we went from what a very -- we just talked about this wasn't really very partisan, this was a very deliberative process in thb morning to anolute focus on partisanship in the second half, and it was all diected at democrats on the committee and the way in which they held on to thisetter and the way in which they, as they said, constantly dropped it, sprg it, ambushed them. >> woodruff: it's almost as if we were lifheted away from partisanship for a brief period and plunged right back into it with kavanaugh. let's take a closer look now at some of judge kavanaugh's testimony. he came after christine

? >> no. >> okay. >> that's it. thank you, mr. chairman. >> ms. mitchell? >> dr. ford has described you as being intoxicated at a party. >> judge kavanaugh seemed to be sort of unable to control himself for some of his hearing this afternoon. and you heard the start of the questioning there that came after. after that interaction with dianne feinstein, screaming at senator feinstein, not really getting her questions and he is sort of interrupting, rung off on tangents and we don't really know where they're going. he then seems to get mikd up or sort of stuck answering questions questions about drinking. and it's hard to tell watching this part of the hearing, watching him talk about drinking during this part of the hearing if judge kavanaugh was finding those particular question just too difficult to answer, or if they weren't necessarily hard questions, but he was just finding it too hard to contain himself, finding it so difficult to contain his emotions that he just couldn't get his answers out. >> i drank beer with my friends. almost everyone did. sometimes i had too many beers.

sexually assaulted anyone. >> ms. mitchell, you have my five minutes to ask questions. >> reporter: the 11 republican senators, all of them men, turning over their questioning of ford to veteran sex crimes prchel >> nice to meet you. >> reporter: the format nute chunks at times awkward. democrats pressing kavanaugh if he wants an fbi investigation. >> personally, do you think that's the best thing for us to do? you won't answer? >> look, senator, i've -- i've said i wanted a hearing, and i said i was welcome to anything. i'm innocent. >> reporter: the most heated moment coming from republican lindsey graham delivering a fiery attack on democratic colleagues. >> when you see sotomayor and kagan, tell them lindsay said hello because i voted for them. i would never do to them what you've done to this guy. this is the most unethical sham since i've been in politics. >> reporter: at one point, ford recalled running into mark judge at a er twa alleged incident. >> i said hello to him, and his face was white and very uncomfortable saying hello back. i wouldn't characterize him as not friendly.

. ms. mitchell is a career prosecutor, civil servant with decades of its periods investigating and prosecuting sex crimes. she's dedicated her her career to seeking justice for survivors related to sex allegations. she was a chief of the special but nuns maricopa county attorney's office, which prosecutes sex crimes and family violence. then, democratic governor janet napolitano previously f recognid her as the outstanding arizona sexual assault prosecutor of the year and she has spent years and struck to prosecutors, detect days and child protective workers on how to properly interview that terms of sexual assault and abuse. i look forward to a fair and productive hearing. i understand that there were two other public allegations. today's hearing was scheduled in close consultation withea dr. ford's attorneys and her testimony will be the subject of this hearing. we've been trained to investigate other allegations. at this time, we have not had cooperation from attorneys representing another client and may have made no attempt to substantiate their claims. my staff has tried to se

i did not drink beer to the point of blacking out and i never sexual assaulted anyone. >> ms. mitchell, you have my five minutes to ask questions. >> reporter: the 11 republican senators all of them men turning over their questioning of fordo veteran sex crime prosecutor rachel mitchell. >> we haven met. my name is rachel mihell. >> nice to meet you. >> reporter: the format with mitchell given five-minute chunks at times award. democrats pressing kavanaugh if he wants an fbi investigation. >> persally, do you think that's the best thing for us to do? ,you want to answer? >> lo senator, i've -- i've said i wanted a hearing and i id i was welcome to anything. i'm innocent. >> reporter: the most heated moment coming from lindsey graham livering a fiery attack on his democratic colleagues. >> when you say sotomyer tell them i voted for them. i'd never do what you tid to this guy. this i most ethical sham since i've been in politics. >> at one point ford called running into mark judge at a safe way weeks after the alleged incident. >> i said hello to him. and his face was white el

rather than let ms. mitchell continue her work, which i think is notable, too. >> garrett haake in the hallway. garrett referenced what we witnessed from senator graham before the break. we have some of that for you on video. >> if you wanted an fbi investigation, you could have come to us. what you want to do is destroy this guy's life, hold this seat open and hope you win in 2020. you've said that. not me. you've got nothing to apologize for. when you see sotomayor and kagan, tell them that lindsey said hello because i voted for them. i would never do to them what you've done to this guy. this is the most unethical sham since i've been in politics. and if you really wanted to know the truth, you sure as hell wouldn't have done what you've done to this guy. are you a gang rapist? >> no. >> i cannot imagine what you and your family have gone through. boy, i want power. god, i hope you never get it. i hope the american people can see through this sham, that you knew about it and you held it. you had no intention of protecting dr. ford. none! she is as much of a victim as you are. god, i

that upon questioning by ms. mitchell, the prosecutor representing the republicans, emily, you know, dr. ford could not basically, she changed what she initially had said. you can talk a little bit about that? >> you're right, there were inconsistencies that were uncovered in her testimony today, and it involved a whole host of kind of seemingly small things, but that add up to the fact that there is a level of uncertainty that shrouds her accounting of things. involved who was there, where the other students were at the time. were they downstairs? were they in the room? how does she not remember how she got there or how she got home in the location was further issue. there were questions about her who were paying for things and why she could fly to certain things but she said she had a fear of flying which prevented her from flying initially on the hill. >> i hear that but people are regarding that fear of flying thing as a pile-on of dr. fords, what you're pointing to inconsistencies for viewers and radio listeners. she sent a whatsapp text to the "washington post" which dr. ford init

jump into asked those questions that were repeated for ms. mitchell who did conduct the questioning in the first round.s now we will open our phone lines. the republican line what is your assessment? >>caller. >> she said the three people in the room they said she did not do it they did not know him why are they drilling him so hard? >> independent line. >>caller:. >> i want to point out i find it suspicious he is not willing to take polygraph and he just had an opportunity to turn to his left and ask the fbi to investigate to have better exculpatory evidence and he was unwilling to do so when his earlier statements was anything to do to clear his name that indicates deception 202-748-89 20 for democrats and 202-748. >> 8921 for republicans. cj j joining us from pennsylvania republican line. >>caller: good afternoon. the current investigation right now not only deplorable on the republican side almost naÏve the way he described the drinking game called the devil's triangle. d just type that in a search. they are letting far too many things go and the fact that judge kavanaugh is not a

, mr. chairman. >> ms. mitchell? >> dr. ford has described you as being intoxicated at a party. did you consume alcohol during your high school years? >> yes, we drank beer. my friends and i. the boys and girls. yes, we drank beer. i liked beer. still like beer. we drank beer. the drinking age was 18 so the seniors were legal. senior year in high school, people were legal to drink. and we -- yeah, we drank beer and i said sometimes -- sometimes probably had too many beers and sometimes other people had too many beers. we drank beer. we liked beer. >> what do you consider to be too many beers? >> i don't know. you know, whatever the chart says on blood alcohol chart. >> when you talked to fox news the other night you said that there were times in high school when people might have had too many beers on occasion. does that include you? >> sure. >> okay. have you ever passed out from drinking? >> passed out would be, no, but i've gone to sleep, but i've never blacked out. that's the allegation, and that -- that's wrong. >> so let's talk about your time in high school. in high school, a

, but we will do it the same way as we did for dr. ford. five-minute rounds. mitchell.tart with ms. >> good afternoon, judge kavanaugh. we have not met, my name is rachel mitchell. i would like to go over a couple of guidelines for our question and answer session today. -- ask a question >> i am ready, thank you. youf i ask a question that do not understand, please ask me to clarify or ask in a different way. i may ask a question where i incorporate some information you already have provided. if i get it wrong, please correct me. i am not going to ask you to guess, if you do estimate, please let me know you are estimating. i want to make sure all of the committee members have gotten a copy of the definition of sexual behavior. >>i want to make sure all of the committee members have yes, at . >> we all do. >> and you have that as well judge kavanaugh. >> yeah. been given or reviewed a copy of the questions that i will be asking you? >> no. >> has anyone told you the questions i will be asking? >> no. >> i want you to take the moment to review the definition of sexual behavior. have

it the same way as we did for dr. ford and five-minute rounds and so we will start with ms. mitchell. >> good afternoon, judge kavanaugh. we have not met, my name is rachel mitchell. i'd like to go over a couple of guidelines for our question and an session today. if i ask a question -- >> yeah, i'm ready. >> okay. if i ask a question -- >> thank you. >> if i ask a question that you do not understand, please ask me to clarify it or ask in a differentu. way. i may ask a question where i incorporate some information you've already provided. if i get it wrong, please correct me. i'm not going to ask you to guess, if you do estimate please let me know you're estimating. i want to make sure that all of the committee members have gotten a copy of the definition y.of sexual behavior. >> yes. at least i have one. >> okay. and you have that as well, judge kavanaugh? >> yeah. >> okay. >> first of all, have you been given or reviewed a copy of the questions that i will be asking you? >> no. >> has anyone told you the questions that i will be asking you? >> no. >> i want you to take a moment to review th

way as we did for dr. ford. and five-minute rounds. and so we will start with ms. mitchell. >> good afternoon, judge kavanaugh. we have not met. my name is rachel mitchell. i'd like to go over a couple of guidelines for our question and answer session today. if i ask a question -- >> yeah, i'm ready. >> if i ask a question. >> thank you. >> if i ask a question that you do not understand, please ask me to clarify it or ask it in a different way. i may ask a question where i incorporate some information you have already provided. if i get it wrong, please correct me. i'm not going to ask you to guess. if you do estimate, please let me know you're estimating. i want to make sure that all of the committee members have gotten a copy of the definition of sexual behavior? >> yes. at least i have one. >> we all do. >> and you have that as well, judge kavanaugh? >> yeah. >> okay. first of all, have you been given or reviewed a copy of the questions that i will be asking you? >> no. >> has anyone told you the question that i will be asking you? >> no. >> i want you to take a moment to review

off by ms. mitchell, the manual that is posted on the attorneys website as a guiding principle and best practices for what should happen with sexual assault cases highlights the suld happen in terms of the need for an objective. effective investigation requires cooperation with a multi disciplinary team that includes medical professionals, dedicated forensic interviewers, criminalests and other law enforcement members. the manual stresses the importance of obtaining outside witness information. you have bravely come forward. you have bravely 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 in fighting for what we do for this country. i believe history will show that you are a true profill in courage at this moment in time in the history of our country and i thank you. >> senator kennedy now. >> dr. ford, we are almost done. which of your lawyers did senator feinstein's office recommend? >> the katz firm. >> and when you did leave that night, did leland kaiser ever follow up with you and say what happ

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 clean

in our country. ms mitchell, for the senator. doctor 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, dc area. as you know i grew up in this area, so i asked some family members and friends and they referred me to, like, the divorce attorney that might know somebody that might know somebody and i ended up interviewing several law firms from the dc area. did anybody besides friends and family refer you to any attorneys?” think that the staff of dianne feinstein's offer suggested the possibility of some attorneys. including those sitting on either side of you? not both of them, no. we have heard a lot about fbi investigations. when did you personally first request an fbi investigation? i guess i first started talking about the possibility of a hearing i thought there would be an investigation. would that investigation. would that investigation be something he would have submitted to an interview? i would be happy to co—operate with the fbi, yes. would you be interviewed by s

, 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 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

. >> mr. chairman, mr. chairman -- >> ms. mitchell -- >> mr. chairman, i just want to point out, to support what senator whitehouse said, and the anita hill case -- >> can we hear from dr. ford? >> george bush ordered that the investigation be opened again. >> ms. mitchell, will you per proceed for senator lee? >> thank you, mr. chairman. dr. ford, "the washington post" reported in their september 16th article that you did show them. is that incorrect? >> i don't remember physically showing her a note. perhaps my counsel dead, i don't remember physically showing her my copy of the notes. but i don't remember. i'm sorry. i have retrieved a physical copy of those medical records. >> okay, thank you. you also attended individual therapy. did you show any of those notes to the reporter from "the washington post"? >> again, i don't remember. i showed her something that i summarized, or if i just spoke about it. or if she saw it in my counsel's office. i don't know for sure. but i certainly spoke with her about the 2013 record with the individual therapist. >> and brett kavanaugh's name i

story. ms. mitchell. tomr. chairman, i would like point out, to support what senator whitehouse said, in the need a hill case, george bush investigated that the -- order that the investigation be opened again. >> will you proceed? >> dr. ford, the washington post reported in their september 16 article that you did show them therapist notes. is that incorrect? i don't remember physically showing her a note. perhaps my counsel did. i don't remember physically showing her my copy of the note, but i just don't remember, i'm sorry. i have retrieved a physical copy of those medical records. >> thank you. >> you also attended individual therapy. did you show any of those notes to the reporter from the washington post? >> again, i don't remember if i showed her something i summarized or if i just spoke about it, or if she saw it in my counsel's office. i certainly spoke with her about the 2013 record with the individual therapist. notrett kavanaugh's name is in those notes, correct? in reading the washington post article, it mentions that the incident that we are here about contributed

very much. this is a moment for our country >> senator, ms. mitchell for senator. >> that afternoon. when we left off we were still talking about the polygraph and i believe he said it has not been paid for yet. is that correct? >> let me put in into this. her lawyers have paid for her polygraph. >> as his routine. >> as his routine. >> doctor ford, do you expect the price of that polygraph to be passed on to you? >> i'm not sure yet. i've not taken a look at all of the costs involved. relocated now twice. i've not kept track of all that paperwork. i'm sure i have a lot of work to do to catch up on all that later. >> i get you a lot going on. is it your understanding that someone else is going to assist you with some of these fees, including the cost for your polygraph? >> i am aware that there been several go fun besides that i have not had a chance to figure out how to manage those because i have not had one. >> i'm sorry, what? >> go fun besides that have raised money for our details. i'm not sure how to collect that money or distribute it yet. i've not been able to focus on that

today. i would like to first follow-up on that line of questioning. ms. mitchell was following. i think a lot of people do not realize that you can -- you chose to come forward with your concerns about judge kavanaugh before he was nominated to the supreme court. do i understand correctly that we first reached out to to congresswoman anna eshoo at the washington post tip line is when he was on the short list, but before he was nominated to the supreme court.>> correct. >> if i understood her testimony earlier, you are motivated a sense of civic duty and i hope that some other highly qualified nominee might be picked, not out of a motivation at a late stage to have an impact on the final decision.>> correct. i thought it was very important to get the information to you that i did not know how to do it. while there was still a short list of candidate.>> according to the justice department data back and -- about two thirds of sexual assault survivors do not report assault. bay center experience, i would be interested in hearing from you about this because you bore this alone. you bore the

tell her story, that's why we're here. >> mr. chairman -- >> ms. mitchell. >> mr. chairman, i just want to point out what senator whitehouse said, in the anita hill case. >> can we hear from dr. ford? >> george bush ordered the investigation be opened again. >> dr. mitchell, will you p proceed for senator lee? >> thank you mr. chairman. dr. ford, "the washington post" reported in their september 16 article that you did show them therapist notes, is that incorrect? >> i don't remember physically showing her a note. perhaps my counsel did. i don't remember physically showing her my copy of the note. >> okay. >> but i just don't remember. i'm sorry. i have retrieved a physical copy of those medical records. >> okay, thank you. >> you also attended individual therapy. did you show any of those notes to the reporter for "the washington post"? >> again, i don't remember if i showed her, like, something that i summarized or if i just spoke about it. or if she saw it in my counsel's office. i can't -- i don't know for sure. but i certainly spoke with her about the 2013 record with the indi

you, mr. cha >> now, ms. mitchell for senator graham and then it's my understanding that that's where you'd like to take a break. >> does that work for you? does that work for you as well? >> we're here to accommodate you. not to accommodate us. >> i'm used to being collegial. >> miss mitchell for senator graham. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you told senator feinstein in your letter that you and four others we present. you've corrected that today to say it was at ast four others. when you were interviewed by the "washington post" you said that there were four boys present at the party. and then in your polygraph statement you said there wer four boys and two girls.wo when you sayirls, was that you and anotr oregon two other girls. >> that was me and one other girl. >> that other girl's name. >> leland. >> leland kaiser now? >> correct. >> then would it be fair to say at least p.j., brett kavanaugh, mark judge, leland ingram at the ti and yourself were prese and possibly others? >> and one other boy. there were four boys. i just don't know the name of the other boy. >> have you been con

identity? >> absolutely not. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> ms. mitchell for senator hatch. >> thank you, mr. chairman. when we were stopped, you were going to tell us a third correction that you wanted to make on that statement -- or i'm sorry, the letter to senator feinstein? >> it wasn't a correction, but i just wanted to comment on it since we were looking at this letter. but i did see mark judge once at the potomac village safeway after the time of the attack, and it would be helpful with anyone's resources if -- to figure out when he worked there if people are wanting more details from me about when the attack occurred, if we could find out when he worked there, then i could provide a more detailed time line as to when the attack occurred. >> okay. and that -- so that is not a correction in your statement? >> it's just -- no. >> okay. you also wrote out a handwritten statement for the polygrahper when you took your polygraph, is that correct? >> yes. >> i see corrections on that. i will go on "the washington post" article that was originally published september 16th of this year. >