# data[].attributes.body
SNL : A skit mocking the system not our victim ( and survivor ).

Here is the full video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRJecfRxbr8 . Feel free to chuckle at the flaws of our system , I can assure you that other countries do.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
CLOSE

It may have been live from New York, but Arizona took center stage during the cold open of Saturday Night Live's 44th season premiere

Two Arizona women were in the spotlight on SNL's season opener Saturday when comedian Aidy Bryant portrayed Rachel Mitchell, the prosecutor selected by Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans to interview Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford.

Mitchell is a Maricopa County prosecutor. Bryant is a Phoenix native.

"My name is Rachel Mitchell and I'm here mostly for Twitter," Bryant's Mitchell said. "And although everyone will constantly be referring to me as female prosecutor, you can really just call me straight up prosecutor."

The skit spoofed the male GOP members of the committee, portraying them as dismissive, misogynistic and disrespectful.

MORE: 'Saturday Night Live' skewers Sen. Jeff Flake, Brett Kavanaugh (and more)

SNL comedian Alex Moffat, portraying Sen. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, blurted out that Bryant's Mitchell was "hired as a human shield" for the Republican politicians.

The comedians called Mitchell a stewardess, a female prosecutor and a female assistant in the skit.

"OK, I cannot believe I flew here on Southwest for this," Bryant's Mitchell said.

SNL's take on the hearing

Plenty of ground was covered in the Saturday Night Live cold open satirical take of what happened at Thursday's historic hearing over allegations of sexual assault against U.S. Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh.

In the SNL comedic version of events, Kavanaugh (Matt Damon) was seething with "level 11" anger, Grassley (Moffat) had voted "yes" before the testimonies began, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Cecily Strong) asked a yes-or-no question but failed to get a straight answer.

Bryant's Mitchell could barely finish asking a single question, much less a train of thought.

It took about 30 seconds before Bryant's Mitchell was interrupted by the pounding of the gavel.

"Now, before we begin..."

"Okay now, having read..."

"I've got to make this quick so we can..."

SNL comedian Kyle Mooney, portraying GOP Sen. John Kennedy, called Mitchell "Ms. Frizzle," a fictional school teacher from "The Magic School Bus" series.

MORE: Rachel Mitchell's performance 'not effective,' Republicans and colleagues say

Skit mirrors Thursday's hearing

The GOP's sidelining of Mitchell in Saturday's skit mirrored much of what actually happened at Thursday's hearing after the prosecutor completed her questioning of Ford and turned to Kavanaugh.

Social media picked up on this dynamic, with some people even wondering if Mitchell had left partway through the hearing.

Washington Post reporter Seung Min Kim reminded her followers that Mitchell was still in attendance, "in case you were all wondering."
Reach reporter Angel Mendoza at amendoza@gannett.com, or follow him on Twitter @angelmendozaAZC or on Facebook.
Read or Share this story: https://azc.cc/2zHCXmE

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
SNL skit spotlights Arizona prosecutor Rachel Mitchell with Phoenix native Aidy Bryant

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
CLOSE It may have been live from New York, but Arizona took center stage during the cold open of Saturday Night Live's 44th season premiere Two Arizona women were in the spotlight on SNL's season opener Saturday when comedian Aidy Bryant portrayed Rachel Mitchell, the prosecutor selected by Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans to interview Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford.

# data[].attributes.headline
Michael Fisher: Wikipedia about the Kavanaugh hearings

# data[].attributes.subject
Michael Fisher: Wikipedia about the Kavanaugh hearings

# data[].attributes.body
REQUIRED POST #1: Please think about this in two ways. It's both a source of information about the nomination and hearings AND an example of collectively produced knowledge about a political event.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination - Wikipedia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
President Donald Trump nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh to become an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States on July 9, 2018, filling the vacancy left by the retirement of Anthony Kennedy. When nominated, Kavanaugh was a sitting judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

# data[].attributes.headline
Michael Fisher: Testimony of Christine Blasey Ford

# data[].attributes.subject
Michael Fisher: Testimony of Christine Blasey Ford

# data[].attributes.body
REQUIRED POST #2: This is Dr. Ford's statement before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Christine Blasey Ford delivers opening statement at Kavanaugh hearing

# data[].attributes.headline
Michael Fisher: Questioning of Christine Blasey Ford by Rachel Mitchell

# data[].attributes.subject
Michael Fisher: Questioning of Christine Blasey Ford by Rachel Mitchell

# data[].attributes.body
REQUIRED POST #3: This is the full video of Rachel Mitchell questioning Christine Blasey Ford about her testimony. Why would Republican senators choose to outsource their right to question a witness like this?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Watch Rachel Mitchell's complete questioning of Christine Blasey Ford, without interruptions

# data[].attributes.body
REQUIRED POST #4: This article considers the Kavanaugh hearings "as the test case for the power of the #MeToo movement." Spend some time wondering what is meant by "actual real power" at the end.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Image

Senator Charles Grassley of the Senate Judiciary Committee seen on televisions in Times Square on Friday.

Credit Credit Todd Heisler/The New York Times

One of the first stories Gretchen Carlson covered in her career as a television journalist was the 1991 Senate hearing where Anita Hill sat alone at the witness table and testified that Clarence Thomas had sexually harassed her. Then, Ms. Carlson said, "I was promptly harassed on the job."

But it wasn't for another 25 years that she would file her explosive sexual harassment lawsuit against Roger Ailes, the powerful founding chairman of Fox News. Ms. Carlson, too, was largely alone; it was July 2016, more than a year before the #MeToo movement would erupt, and even some female colleagues at her own network questioned her actions. While she won a $20 million settlement, Mr. Ailes left the network with a $40 million payout.

As she watched this week as another Supreme Court nominee faced sexual assault allegations - this time from a woman supported by sexual assault survivors and female senators sitting behind her - Ms. Carlson could not help seeing the effects of the revolution she helped start, and its limits.

"We've made such great strides with regard to the fact that women coming forward now are given a platform to tell their story," she said. "That would have never happened before. But we are still in the 'he said, she said.'"

The next week may not reveal conclusively whether the nominee, Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, sexually assaulted Christine Blasey Ford when they were teenagers, as she claims and he denies. The Judiciary Committee on Friday agreed to a one-week supplemental background check into Judge Kavanaugh by the F.B.I.

But with all of its emotion and anger - and even the Republicans' last-minute forced reversal on the background check - the fight over his nomination shows how the dynamics of the #MeToo movement have begun to thread their way into American life.

And depending on what the F.B.I. finds and how the Senate responds, it could serve as the test case for the power of the #MeToo movement.

"Do I think that Christine would have ever been able to have the voice that she did without this movement we are in? No," Ms. Carlson said. "But as a nation, we still have a lot of work to do."

There is no question the effects of the movement have been uneven. While allegations of sexual misconduct have cut a swath through the upper reaches of industries like the media and entertainment, politics has been more forgiving for some - beginning with President Trump, who remains enormously popular with Republicans despite multiple accusations of sexual assault and his own admission caught on tape.

Image

Gretchen Carlson, a former Fox News journalist, helped propel the #MeToo movement with a sexual harassment lawsuit against Roger Ailes. Credit Sasha Arutyunova for The New York Times

Still, the emergence of Dr. Blasey and the reaction on all sides show how pivotal the movement has become. While Dr. Blasey came forward reluctantly with decades-old claims, she was immediately embraced and supported by #MeToo activists and women across the country. The Republican men who run the Senate Judiciary Committee - two of whom remain from the time Ms. Hill appeared 27 years ago - were careful to publicly show her deference.

And when Judge Kavanaugh came before the committee to forcefully deny the allegations, one of the themes of his tearful rant was that Dr. Blasey's account threatened to turn him into one of those once-powerful men cut down by an accusation from the past, uncorroborated by eyewitnesses. He lamented that he might lose his ability to coach his daughters' basketball team and teach at Harvard, not to mention his chance to serve on the Supreme Court .

It was as if the accusations and recriminations that have played out in workplaces across the country over the last year were now elevated to a bigger stage - hearings broadcast on national television, with the nation's leaders engaged in the tug of war over who gets to speak and who is heard.

Dr. Blasey testified that the memory that had traumatized her repeatedly over the years was one of forced silence: Judge Kavanaugh, a 17-year-old high school athlete, putting his hand over her mouth to muffle her screams for help as he pinned her to a bed and assaulted her.

Democrat after Democrat on the panel thanked Dr. Blasey for her bravery in speaking up now, saying her courage had inspired other women to come forward to tell of their long-silenced terrors.

During Judge Kavanaugh's testimony, he interrupted Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, a Democrat who ran for her office because she was appalled at how Ms. Hill was diminished by an all-male judiciary panel. He responded to a question about his drinking habits from Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota by defiantly turning it on her: Had she ever blacked out from drinking too much? (He later apologized to her.)

After a year of male leaders talking about the need to listen to the nation's daughters, sisters and wives, he demanded that the senators think of men. "I ask you to judge me by the standard that you would want applied to your father. Your husband. Your brother. Or your son," he said, his face twisted in pain.

Republicans, aware of the lessons of the Anita Hill hearing, and with the midterm elections just six weeks away, had hired a female sex crimes prosecutor to ask questions for them, producing an unusual image of white men in suits sitting silently behind a woman leading the questioning. But they soon sidelined her in frustration and began to ask their own questions. In essence: Was one woman's account going to be the knockout blow that ruins a man's life, an account of a furtive moment so long ago?

Senator Lindsey Graham pleaded for proportionality of punishment, pointing out that Judge Kavanaugh was not Bill Cosby.

"I know I'm a single white man from South Carolina and I've been told to shut up, but I will not shut up," Mr. Graham told his colleagues as they gathered to vote on the nomination Friday morning.

Christine Blasey Ford after testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh later denied her accusations. Credit Gabriella Demczuk for The New York Times

Seeing men claim themselves as victims "is turning #MeToo on its head," said Nancy Erika Smith, a lawyer who represented Ms. Carlson and other women in sexual harassment suits.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a New York Democrat who was the first to call for the resignation of Senator Al Franken, Democrat of Minnesota, over accusations of sexual misconduct, called the hearing a "very dark moment" for women.

"They saw men in power who were believing other men in power over women who suffered gravely," she said in an interview. "They saw that disbelief and dismissiveness of women and they felt disbelieved and dismissed themselves."

Judge Kavanaugh, she said, is very much a part of the male power structure that was being challenged. "His defense was, 'I am powerful, I am successful and I should be allowed to complete my career path by serving on the Supreme Court," she said.

Asked about his drinking or yearbook boasts of sexual conquests, Ms. Gillibrand said, "His response was: Look at my résumé. I have bigger fish to fry than dealing with what I said about women and my own behavior in high school and the relevant period when she says he sexually assaulted her."

Still, Ms. Gillibrand said she was sitting behind Dr. Blasey in the hearing and watching Senator Jeff Flake, the Arizona Republican who made his vote to advance Judge Kavanaugh's nomination conditional on having the F.B.I. investigate.

"He was listening," Ms. Gillibrand said. "He's been listening."

The moment may be particular to Washington, and the bitter divides in the Senate, where Democrats are angry at Republicans for refusing to hold hearings for Merrick B. Garland, President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee.

On the campaign trail, by contrast, female candidates are coming forward to assert themselves as survivors of sexual misconduct. Many are winning, and polling has shown that a majority of voters cast doubt on candidates who say the #MeToo movement has gone too far.

Institutions have been slow to change. But women who have brought charges of sexual misconduct say that as more women come forward, they inevitably will.

"The limits are about actual real power," said Ms. Smith, the lawyer. "Unless women really do take power in the legislature, in courts, in C-suites, in every aspect of life, unless we demand and take our share, nothing will ever, ever change. They are not going to give it to us. We have to take it."

A version of this article appears in print on , on Page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Fight Over Kavanaugh Shows the Power, and Limits, of #MeToo. Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Kavanaugh Battle Shows the Power, and the Limits, of #MeToo Movement

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
One of the first stories Gretchen Carlson covered in her career as a television journalist was the 1991 Senate hearing where Anita Hill sat alone at the witness table and testified that Clarence Thomas had sexually harassed her. Then, Ms. Carlson said, "I was promptly harassed on the job."

# data[].attributes.body
This explains who Brett Kavanaugh is, what the allegations against him are, what his past was like, and what him becoming supreme court justice means for the US.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/who-is-brett-kavanaugh/2018/09/03/d9226b68-af7d-11e8-a20b-5f4f84429666_story.html?utm_term=.cfe5e65bcd92

# data[].attributes.body
A photo of women responding to Kavanaugh as he speaks during trial

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.original_text
every woman in this pic tho https://t.co/6Y2SvY4YlU

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
every woman in this pic tho pic.twitter.com/6Y2SvY4YlU
— Gustavo Luis (@verygooster) September 27, 2018

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props_source.data.text
every woman in this pic tho https://t.co/6Y2SvY4YlU

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.original_text
every woman in this pic tho https://t.co/6Y2SvY4YlU

# data[].attributes.body
After Kavanaugh was voted in, I remember seeing many posts of signs at protests and continued use of the hashtag #ibelievechristine and this article shows some and talks about how this relates to the "feminist movement" as a whole.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On Monday morning, several hundred protesters gathered on the steps of the Supreme Court, wearing ponchos and huddling under umbrellas to shelter themselves from the rain. They listened quietly as several survivors of sexual assault stood in front of a cluster of television microphones and told their stories.

"I was twelve years old, he was fifteen," said one speaker, who stood surrounded by women who put their hands on her back in support. "The fact that he was a teen-ager does not lessen anything, does not minimize the lifelong effects that I've lived with for forty-six years."

Another speaker: "Thirty-five years from now, I will still remember every single detail that I remember now."

To each account, the audience responded: "We believe you."

The crowd was overwhelmingly comprised of women: union members wearing ponchos, from a Service Employees International Union 32BJ chapter from the D.C. area, a contingent from Maine distributing signs that read "Susan Collins VOTE NO or we will fund your opponent." Some staffers from the Women's March organization looked polished in business dress and red lipstick; those from the Center for Popular Democracy Action were more casual in jeans and sneakers. Several women wore knock-offs of the army coat that Melania Trump had on when she visited immigrant children forcibly separated from their parents. Instead of graffiti-inspired font reading "I REALLY DON'T CARE, DO U," the jackets said, "November is coming." There were also students from Yale Law School, more than a hundred of them, dressed like a disgruntled cheerleading squad in Yale sweaters and sweatshirts and holding a banner that said, "Yale Law School objects to Kavanaugh." Women distributed white buttons with a black font that read, "I believe Dr. Christine Blasey Ford."

In recent months, organizations including Women's March, Housing Works, and the Center for Popular Democracy, an umbrella group of local progressive organizations, have increasingly resorted to direct action over less confrontational strategies like letter writing and street protests. In the past year, hundreds of people have been arrested during Capitol Hill sit-ins and demonstrations against the Republican-led tax cuts, the attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and Trump's termination of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. Last June, on one day alone, almost six hundred people were arrested during a sit-in protesting Trump's policy of separating immigrant children from their parents. The protests against Kavanaugh's nomination began in early August, and hundreds have been arrested since then.

"I've been an organizer for twenty years, and nonviolent civil disobedience has always been a tool in the advocacy toolbox, but it's usually one that takes people a long time to be willing to engage in," Jennifer Flynn Walker, the Center for Popular Democracy's director of mobilization and advocacy, said. "This was new activists, many of whom had become politically active right after Trump was elected and then immediately were willing to ramp up to engage in civil disobedience."

On Monday, Flynn Walker, a wiry woman with loose blond hair, radiated intensity as she invited protesters to give speeches, and gently herded them into camera-ready arrangements. Even before Blasey Ford came forward, she told me, it had not been hard to find people willing to come to Washington to protest Brett Kavanaugh's nomination. "People think we have this amazing organizing machine or something, but it was really just that we told people where to line up and, en masse, people lined up," she said. For the hearings early this month, "Women just showed up, they got themselves there, they fundraised, they fundraised for our organizations to help them get there, they fundraised for themselves, to get there, they set up GoFundMe, they set up CrowdRise, they did whatever they could do." Many Americans saw the spectacle of Capitol Police dragging out Women's March members, including Linda Sarsour, Bob Bland, and Winnie Wong, during the first days of the hearings. At times, the protesters, the vast majority of them women, disrupted proceedings nearly every fifteen minutes. Senator John Cornyn, a Republican from Texas, referred to it as "mob rule." Senator Orrin Hatch, a Republican from Utah, called it "insolence."

From the Supreme Court on Monday, the protesters proceeded to the Hart Senate Office Building. As they waited to pass through security, they formed a line that filled the sidewalks for more than a block. Passing cars honked in solidarity. Sarsour, holding a black umbrella, stood on a slick raised platform and recorded a message to her followers about the action. When she finished, I asked her how the allegations against Kavanaugh had changed the opposition to his nomination.

"I think it's giving courage just to other women to speak about their stories in general," she said. "It's been very triggering for women, triggering for some of us who are not ready to share, so being here today for us is very important, we feel like we've created a movement of people who see what's at stake here and are willing to put it all on the line."

Inside, demonstrators congregated in the sky-lit atrium around Alexander Calder's black sculpture "Mountains and Clouds." They held signs that read, "One sexual predator on the Supreme Court is enough" and "I was assaulted 31 years ago. I'm not mixed up but I'm angry and I VOTE." A Capitol Police officer waded into the crowd and spoke through a bullhorn in indecipherable static. The message was relayed around the room: Demonstrating is prohibited in the Capitol buildings, but visiting is not. According to District of Columbia law, "the term 'demonstration' means marching, congregating, standing, sitting, lying down, parading, demonstrating, or patrolling by one or more persons, with or without signs, for the purpose of persuading one or more individuals, or the public, or to protest some action, attitude, or belief."

The protesters lowered or folded their signs. They ceased chanting.

I started chatting with three people wearing scrubs and lab coats. Elizabeth Deutsch, a nurse from Vermont, works for Housing Works. Her companions, Sanjeev Sriram and Christopher Jentoft, were both doctors. Jentoft, a family physician from rural Arizona, told me that "half the population he serves" would be affected if Kavanaugh were appointed to the Supreme Court. I asked what population he served. "Humans," he said. "Women."

The first arrests happened around ten-thirty in the morning, outside the office of Susan Collins, where visitors were telling their stories of sexual assault to Collins's staffers. Once they finished, a self-selected group of activists began breaking the law against demonstrations in earnest, and those who wished to avoid arrest moved behind the police line. Looking a little weary, a cluster of a dozen or so police officers, many of whom had zip ties hanging from their uniforms, put on latex gloves and proceeded to the end of the hallway to begin arrests. According to a statement later released by Capitol Police, forty-six people were arrested near Collins's office and charged with "Crowding, Obstructing, or Incommoding."

As the morning progressed, survivors of sexual assault told stories outside of Senator Jeff Flake's office, where a bewildered-seeming staffer stood in the doorway and listened. Ady Barkan, a progressive activist who has become a regular in the halls of the Capitol, was there, too. Last year, Barkan, who has A.L.S., became famous after a video clip circulated of him urging Flake to "be an American hero" and oppose the Republican tax cuts. Now Barkan cut a figure of pathos, surrounded by supporters wearing black "Be a Hero" T-shirts as he requested another meeting with Flake.

The final action of the day happened in the rotunda of the Russell Senate Office Building. After more speeches by sexual-assault survivors, and one by the son of a sexual-assault survivor, a group of men, led by Barkan and joined by several women, handed their backpacks and belongings to friends and gathered together for the cameras. They chanted, "We believe in women," and "Fight back," until another eighty-two people were arrested and taken away.

During this last round of arrests, I followed Flynn Walker and Ana María Archila, the co-executive director of the Center for Popular Democracy, from the Russell Senate Office Building back to the Hart Senate Office Building, where the group was to reconvene. Flynn Walker was lugging a camping backpack handed to her by a woman who made a last-minute decision to get arrested. Archila had testified as a survivor of sexual assault outside of Senator Jeff Flake's office earlier in the day. Her eyes were still red from the aftermath.

We walked through the tunnel that connects the two senate office buildings, taking a maintenance route with exposed pipes and workers moving cargo on dollies.

"I learned this way when we did one of the DACA protests," Archila said. "The young people from United We Dream knew the building so well."

We found a side exit and climbed some steps, and soon we were back beneath the Calder sculpture, where the remaining demonstrators had discovered that the Capitol Police would tolerate them standing silently with raised fists. I asked Flynn Walker if there would be protests on Thursday, when Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh are scheduled to testify to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

"We will be here en masse," Flynn Walker said. "There will be thousands of people lining the halls, being quiet. It will be so quiet that a pin can drop. We'll be surrounding the hearing room in a sign of support for Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, and we're not going to protest. We're going to let her words and his words stand. Until Friday. And then we'll do something else."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How the Kavanaugh Nomination Has Intensified the Feminist Protest Movement

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On Monday morning, several hundred protesters gathered on the steps of the Supreme Court, wearing ponchos and huddling under umbrellas to shelter themselves from the rain. They listened quietly as several survivors of sexual assault stood in front of a cluster of television microphones and told their stories.

# data[].attributes.body
This is an open letter of sorts from one of the 83 complainants against Brett Kavanaugh. It brings forth the question of what exactly constitutes a legitimate complaint against such a public figure ?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Two weeks ago, the Judicial Council of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit dismissed 83 judicial misconduct complaints filed against Brett M. Kavanaugh in connection with his nomination to the Supreme Court. The identities of the complainers have been kept secret, but nothing prevents them from coming forward. I am coming forward. I'm one of those 83 complainers.

I'm a retired attorney who is on no one's short list to serve on the Supreme Court. But I listened on Sept. 27 while Kavanaugh peppered two hours of Senate testimony with attacks against people and groups he associated with Democrats. Kavanaugh alleged (without factual basis) that he was the victim of a vast, secret, left-wing cabal, masterminded by senators such as Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and motivated by " revenge on behalf of the Clintons." I was shocked to hear a Supreme Court nominee carry on like a crazed conspiracy theorist.

Turns out, there's a rule against federal judges behaving like this. Congress passed the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act in 1980, and the rules under that act state that it's misconduct for a federal judge to make "inappropriately partisan statements." I may be retired, but I think I know an inappropriately partisan statement when I hear one.

So a few days later, I filed a complaint against Kavanaugh under the 1980 act. It ended up before Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who punted it, among others, to the Judicial Council of the 10th Circuit in Denver. The complaints varied in quality: Some were written like formal briefs, and others were submitted on postcards. They accumulated in Denver for more than two months. Meanwhile, Kavanaugh was confirmed to the Supreme Court and President Trump proclaimed that Kavanaugh had been the victim of a Democratic Party "hoax." There's no rule against a president making inappropriately partisan statements.

The 10th Circuit Judicial Council finally announced its dismissal of the 83 complaints on Dec. 18, explaining its decision roughly as follows: (1) The 1980 act applies to circuit judges but not Supreme Court justices, (2) Kavanaugh was a D.C. Circuit Court judge during his confirmation hearings and when I filed my complaint, but (3) he's a Supreme Court justice now. Evidently a circuit judge nominated to the Supreme Court can be held responsible for his partisan misconduct before the Senate, so long as the Senate fails to confirm the nominee. But if the nominee wins the approval of a partisan Senate, then his inappropriate partisanship is excused. This reasoning doesn't make sense to me. It's like saying we can prosecute a safecracker only if the safe proved to be empty.

You may not agree with the substance of my complaint. And given the political divide in the present Senate, you may think Kavanaugh's partisanship was unavoidable. But I should have had the chance to argue my point.

Granted, the 1980 act does not apply to the conduct of Supreme Court justices. But the act fails to say what to do when a judge engages in misconduct before becoming a Supreme Court justice. Here, the Judicial Council argued that Kavanaugh's elevation to the Supreme Court was an "intervening event" under the 1980 act and its accompanying rules, and that "a misconduct proceeding can be concluded because of 'intervening events.' " Unfortunately, the Judicial Council truncated the relevant rule, which allows for a complaint to be dismissed if "intervening events render some or all of the allegations moot or make remedial action impossible." Kavanaugh's elevation to the Supreme Court did not render moot the questionable behavior that helped win him that seat. Nor is remedial action impossible now that Judge Kavanaugh is Justice Kavanaugh. Brett Kavanaugh can still issue the kind of full apology he has avoided up until now, and he can recuse himself from highly partisan cases (those with Trump as a party, for example).

In order to let Kavanaugh off the hook, the Judicial Council skipped around relevant commentary stating that "as long as the subject of a complaint performs judicial duties, a complaint alleging judicial conduct must be addressed." Here, the Judicial Council interpreted "judicial duties" to refer only to duties of judges covered under the 1980 act - leading the council to the strained conclusion that a Supreme Court justice does not perform "judicial duties." Instead of this tortured reasoning, I'd say we've appended yet another exception to the adage that no one is above the law. The 1980 act assigned to the courts a responsibility to address judges who engage in misconduct, and the 10th Circuit Judicial Council read the act looking for a way out. It appears that federal judges can indeed make inappropriately partisan statements, so long as they are important judges with powerful partisan friends.
Read more: E.J. Dionne Jr.: We need to stay angry about Kavanaugh Jennifer Rubin: Let's not buy the Republican spin on Brett Kavanaugh Helaine Olen: The staggering hypocrisy of Brett Kavanaugh Jennifer Rubin: Republicans' spin on Kavanaugh isn't working Alexandra Petri: HOW DARE YOU DO THIS TO BRETT KAVANAUGH?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | I filed one of the 83 dismissed misconduct complaints against Brett Kavanaugh. Here's why.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Two weeks ago, the Judicial Council of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit dismissed 83 judicial misconduct complaints filed against Brett M. Kavanaugh in connection with his nomination to the Supreme Court. The identities of the complainers have been kept secret, but nothing prevents them from coming forward.

# data[].attributes.body
Red , uncomfortable , and republican Senator Jeff Flake is confronted and cornered on an elevator ride by Ana Maria Archila and Maria Gallagher. Both sexual assault survivors shamed Sen. Flake's moral , or lack there of.

Round 1: Survivors vs. Kavanaugh's Nomination

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sexual assault survivor corners senator in lift

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Jeff Flake was on his way to vote for Brett Kavanaugh when the woman challenged him.

# data[].attributes.headline
Natalie Pujols. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s State of Union Guest: Ana Maria Archieto

# data[].attributes.subject
Natalie Pujols. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s State of Union Guest: Ana Maria Archieto

# data[].attributes.body
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez invites Ana Maria Archieto as her guest to Donald Trump’s State of the Union. Last year, at the height of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings, Archieto confronted former Senator Jeff Flake in an elevator after he announced that he would be voting in favor of Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has invited the woman who cornered former Senator Jeff Flake in an elevator during a viral moment at the height of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanauagh 's confirmation hearings last year, to be her guest during Donald Trump's upcoming State of the Union.

The State of the Union is often seen as a moment to register symbolic protest through guests who highlight differences between the president and those in the opposition party, like Ms Ocasio-Cortez.

The choice of Ana Maria Archila to attend the yearly event was announced in a video posted by the Centre for Popular Democracy, where she works as the co-executive director.

Ms Ocasio-Cortez tells Ms Archila in the video that she had purchased matching pins for them to wear in the Capitol - and those pins don the message that "well-behaved women rarely make history".

Ms Archila's moment with Mr Flake in the elevator quickly spread online, and highlighted the intense controversy brought about during Mr Kavanaugh's confirmation after he was accused by Dr Christine Blasey Ford of having groped her during a party while they were both teenagers.

The confrontation that went viral came after Mr Flake announced he would not win favour of Mr Kavanaugh's confirmation, in spite of the allegations rain by Dr Blasey Ford and others.

"He need to understand that women feel incredibly enraged about the thought of our stories, of our experiences of surviving sexual violence being dismissed, laughed at, disbelieved, and I think I just felt a great sense of urgency and I think I saw in his face that he could not escape the emotion," Ms Archila told CNN after the encounter.

The State of the Union is scheduled for Tuesday night, and was postponed as a result of the government shutdown that was ended last month after 35 days.

In addition to Ms Ocasio-Cortez's chosen guest, other prominent freshman representatives have chosen high profile guests to attend with them. Representative Ilhan Omar, for instance, has chosen a Liberian immigrant facing possible deportation as her companion in a clear demonstration against the Trump administration's harsh immigration policies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez bringing woman who cornered Jeff Flake at Brett Kavanaugh hearing as her guest to State of the Union

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has invited the woman who cornered former Senator Jeff Flake in an elevator during a viral moment at the height of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanauagh's confirmation hearings last year, to be her guest during Donald Trump's upcoming State of the Union.

# data[].attributes.body
Kavanaugh's dissent on Abortion rights can affect all women, especially victims of sexual violence. This is something that the #MeToo movement can advocate and fight for.  Though this is Temporary, it is also alarming!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Late Thursday night, abortion rights narrowly escaped a blow, and in his dissent from the order, Brett Kavanaugh confirmed your worst suspicions. While pretending to be reasonable and evenhanded, he would have made abortion all but impossible to access.

The Supreme Court was asked to temporarily block a Louisiana law requiring admitting privileges at local hospitals for abortion providers that would have shut down most clinics in the state. Thanks to a surprise defection from Chief Justice John Roberts, who joined the Democratic appointees, the clinics stay open for now - at least till the case gets back to the Supreme Court in full. Kavanaugh chose to dissent, seemingly innocuously. "The case largely turns on the intensely factual question whether the three doctors ... can obtain admitting privileges," he wrote. He proposed waiting and seeing "without disturbing the status quo or causing harm to the parties or the affected women, and without this Court's further involvement at this time."

That managed to persuade the New York Times that Kavanaugh had taken "a middle position that acknowledged the key precedent and said he would have preferred more information on the precise effect of the law." But Kavanaugh was being disingenuous. He ignored the fact that a lower court had already found that doctors couldn't get the privileges, not to mention the court's own precedent from 2016 that such laws must fall not just because they burden women, but because they didn't make abortion any safer.

In 2016, the court threw out a nearly identical Texas law, also passed in the name of protecting women. As everybody expected would happen, it led to many clinics shutting down, effectively banning abortion for the women who depended on them unless they had the means to travel for hours and hours, including out of state. A majority of justices ruled in that case, known as Whole Woman's Health, that states can't just make up medical reasons to make abortions harder to access. They told judges considering future laws to "consider the burdens a law imposes on abortion access together with the benefits those laws confer." The Texas law failed that test; as RBG put it in her separate opinion "it is beyond rational belief that [the law] could genuinely protect the health of women."

So why are we even having this conversation again? There's only one reason why we're trapped in abortion Groundhog Day, which is Kavanaugh's very presence on the Court. When he replaced Justice Anthony Kennedy, who voted to strike down the Texas law, anti-abortion appeals court judges, egged on by legislators and activists, decided to try their luck. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals claimed unconvincingly that the facts are "remarkably different" from the Texas case. Not really, unless you count the composition of the court.

It's easy to forget that before Brett Kavanaugh was all blubbering fury and offended entitlement, he was nice-guy Brett, hirer of women and people of color, coacher of basketball. (He's still at it, despite his lament at the hearings.) His dissent attempts to have it both ways: I'm a reasonable guy, not like you've heard. But the result is radical, and it's not the first time.

The only major abortion case Kavanaugh had ruled on until now, as a judge on the D.C. circuit, was that of an undocumented minor known as Jane Doe who had jumped through every hoop Texas had forced on her but was still being refused access out of detention to an abortion clinic. Kavanaugh seemingly wanted to split the difference: He claimed he wasn't denying Jane an abortion, just that more waiting time was required to find a sponsor to help Jane make her choice. But the hunt for a sponsor had already proved fruitless, even as the legal machinations that were steadily pushing her past Texas's legal abortion limit. Kavanaugh's kicking the can down the road would have denied her choice without him taking responsibility for it. It's a form of judicial gaslighting.

The gambit of asking for more facts in bad faith evokes nothing more than the internet trope of sea lioning, which Know Your Meme defines as "intrusive attempts at engaging an unwilling debate opponent by feigning civility and incessantly requesting evidence to back up their claims." That's essentially what Kavanaugh is asking for, politely demanding more information while effectively stacking the deck. But when it comes to who Kavanaugh is, he's given us all the facts we need.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Brett Kavanaugh Knows Exactly What He's Doing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Late Thursday night, abortion rights narrowly escaped a blow, and in his dissent from the order, Brett Kavanaugh confirmed your worst suspicions. While pretending to be reasonable and evenhanded, he would have made abortion all but impossible to access.

# data[].attributes.body
Roy Rice resignation after being accused of sexually harassing Isa Hackett. He told her that she would 'love his d****" and whispered in her ear "anal sex". Justice was made 50% because he paid for his "mistake"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Roy Price resigns from Amazon Studios amid sexual harassment allegations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
October 17, 2017 Roy Price, the head of Amazon Studios, has resigned from his position amid allegations that he sexually harassed a producer of one of the company's most high-profile shows. An Amazon Studios spokesman on Tuesday confirmed Price's resignation. It follows his suspension by the company last week.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
For Christine Blasey Ford, it was a devastating night she will never forget. But, for Brett Kavanaug… | Politics: If You Smell Something, Say Something | Pinterest | Feminism, Equality and Intersectional feminism

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For Christine Blasey Ford, it was a devastating night she will never forget. But, for Brett Kavanaugh, it was a Tuesday.

# data[].attributes.headline
Rosalia Johnson: What's next for #MeToo  after Kavanaugh's nomination

# data[].attributes.subject
Rosalia Johnson: What's next for #MeToo  after Kavanaugh's nomination

# data[].attributes.body
This article discusses the effect that Kavanaugh"s nomination has on the #MeToo movement as a whole. Activist discuss it's current tactics and some changes that will be applied to achieve the goal of stronger sexual harassment laws and protection for victims.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
what's next for #metoo after kavanaugh's confirmation - cnn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What's next for #MeToo after Kavanaugh's confirmation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Activists and survivors say they intend to channel their anger over Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation as a Supreme Court justice into political and legislative action for the midterms and beyond.

# data[].attributes.headline
Christine Pettit: Brett Kavanaugh's full opening statement

# data[].attributes.subject
Christine Pettit: Brett Kavanaugh's full opening statement

# data[].attributes.body
"Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaughgives his opening statement in front of the Senate Judiciary committee after he was accused by Christine Blasey Ford of sexual assault."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
watch brett kavanaugh's full opening statement - cnn video

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Watch Brett Kavanaugh's full opening statement - CNN Video

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh gives his opening statement in front of the Senate Judiciary committee after he was accused by Christine Blasey Ford of sexual assault.

# data[].attributes.body
This special form of psychopath: Republican senator Lindsey Graham who on multiple occasions lost his temper (and mind) when speaking to what he claimed were false accusations.

https://medium.com/@remakingmanhood/the-kavanaugh-hearings-echo-the-patterns-of-assault-1b26318eaec8

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/29/politics/alyssa-milano-kavanaugh-hearing-cnntv/index.html

# data[].attributes.body
"We were ready to go and hit the ground running to make sure that everyone understood what was at stake with this particular seat being the deciding seat for us, for so many things that people care about from Roe v. Wade to environmental issues to campaign finance across the board," she said in an interview outside the hearing room."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
meet the protesters interrupting brett kavanaugh's confirmation hearing - cnnpolitics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Meet the protesters interrupting Kavanaugh's hearing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Scarlet-red capes. Gray t-shirts emblazoned with "I Am What's At Stake." Purple tees reading, "Reproductive Freedom For All."

# data[].attributes.body
Sen. Kamala Harris speaks on the concerns of Brett Kavanaugh serving on the supreme court.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sen. Kamala Harris says she believes Kavanaugh accuser: "She has nothing to gain"

# data[].attributes.body
A compilation of twitter memes inspired by the trial

# data[].attributes.body
I think this is important to think about because when looking at this case and most cases of sexual assault the appearance and personality of the victim somehow becomes a main focus and can sway opinions and judgements on the case especially when looking from an intersectional perspective.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Image

Christine Blasey Ford shaking hands with Rachel Mitchell, a sex crimes prosecutor, after the hearing on Thursday. Credit Credit Gabriella Demczuk for The New York Times

She dressed modestly, in a navy suit and dark-rimmed glasses. No flashy jewelry, little makeup.

She is a professor and psychologist with an impressive C.V.

She is white, and blond, and pretty - but not too pretty - with an intact family, suburban home and children.

She teared up in her testimony - her voice cracking - but she did not openly cry or break down.

And she smiled! She pleaded for caffeine and joked about Google interns renting out her home.

"These are all codes for 'she is displaying proper expectations of femininity,'" said Marianne Cooper, a sociologist at Stanford who studies gender inequality. "Women are walking a very fine line. Too much or too little of something can lead people to discredit them. That so many people found Dr. Blasey Ford credible suggests that she was able to get across that tight rope and not fall off."

In other words, Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who on Thursday told the Senate Judiciary Committee in excruciating detail that Brett M. Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her when they were teenagers, was everything a victim is supposed to be.
[Want more analysis of women and gender? Sign up for Gender Letter, a weekly newsletter.]
Whether or not Judge Kavanaugh ends up on the United States Supreme Court, the hearing was nothing short of a watershed moment.

It was perhaps the most important one since 1991, when women gathered around water coolers and in airport lounges to watch Anita Hill testify about Clarence Thomas - effectively educating a generation about the definition of workplace sexual harassment.

And if it provided a similar generational schooling on the nuances and lasting repercussions of teenage assault, it was also a stark reminder of the gender dynamics, and mental gymnastics, required of women who speak up (or speak at all).

There was the offhand remark by the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, about the "female assistant" who would question Dr. Blasey - actually a seasoned prosecutor of sex crimes, Rachel Mitchell.

Image

Brett M. Kavanaugh struck a very different tone from Dr. Ford during his testimony. Credit Erin Schaff for The New York Times

There were the repeated interruptions by male senators of the women in the room, starting in the first minutes with the Republican chairman, Senator Charles E. Grassley.

It is worth keeping in mind that the Senate is a place where, up until a decade ago, women were not allowed in the swimming pool because the men liked to swim naked. It remains an institution where women cannot enter the floor with their shoulders showing, and it has struggled to figure out how to solve its own misconduct problem.

And, of course, the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee are all men.

That is one thing that has not changed since 1991.

But Dr. Blasey was not forced to reckon with the racial components of Professor Hill's hearing. Justice Thomas called the charges against him a "high-tech lynching" while Professor Hill, as a black woman, faced a complicated interplay of racism and sexism.

Unlike Professor Hill, who was accused of bringing "sleaze" into the Senate, Dr. Blasey instantly won very public support, including from numerous senators who declared on Thursday: "I believe you."

Even Senator Orrin Hatch - who implied in 1991 that parts of Professor Hill's testimony had been adapted from "The Exorcist" - called Dr. Blasey an "attractive," "pleasing" witness. ("I don't think she's uncredible," he said during a hearing lunch break.)

By day's end, though, we had another glaring double standard: a woman who gained trust by maintaining ultimate composure - by balancing her expertise with being unthreatening - and a man who tried to convince the world, or at least the president backing him, of his fitness by losing it: waffling between anger and tears, red in the face, and declaring himself a victim of " revenge on behalf of the Clintons."

"If he were a woman we'd be questioning if she were unhinged," said Alicia Menendez, a correspondent for PBS, of Kavanaugh's opening statement.

It was like years of academic research on display in real time, in which women who express anger will be dismissed as hysterical but men who express anger are perceived as "passionate" about the job.

In contrast, Dr. Blasey remained calm, speaking in a soft, girl-like tone about a thing that happened as a girl but has stayed with her for three decades.

In searing detail, she described how the "boys" she knew in high school - just "Brett" and "Mark," not "Judge Kavanaugh" or "Mark Judge" - pushed her into a room and pinned her down, then laughed uproariously, "having fun at my expense."

She also managed her own testimony with the precision of a scientist.

When asked by Ms. Feinstein why she had kept the story to herself for so long, she replied that she had not: "I brought it up in therapy, which seemed an appropriate place to deal with the sequelae of the assault."

(Sequela - that's a noun referring to an "aftereffect of a disease, condition or injury," according to Merriam Webster.)

On how she was "sure" it was Judge Kavanaugh, and not another person, who attacked her on that night all those years ago, she replied that it was "the way that I'm sure that I'm talking to you right now - it's just basic memory functions," including "the level of norepinephrine and epinephrine" that "codes memories into the hippocampus" so that "trauma-related experience is locked there."

She was operating, as some pointed out, as both expert and witness - confirming her own perspective, each step of the way, before there was the chance for anyone to ask her to do it.

"Rather than the vague pop-psychology language of trauma that has surrounded this story, Ford could offer a more technical, and better-defended, account," wrote Ben Wallace-Wells in The New Yorker.

And yet she also lamented how she'd like to have been more "collaborative" with the committee and would have happily hosted the chairman and his Republican colleagues in her California home (the home she has now had to vacate because of death threats).

When asked what time she would like to take a break, she replied: "Does that work for you?" ("I'm used to being collegial," she said, when Senator Grassley replied that it was up to her.)

"I'm heartbroken watching Dr. Ford make jokes, giggle, and say she'll read quickly, because she shouldn't have to make a bunch of white men feel comfortable when recounting her sexual assault," the writer Lily Herman tweeted.

And yet, what choice did she have?

"It's like the Anita Hill hearing didn't just teach us about sexual harassment, it also taught us that credible victimhood had to align with conventional gender expectations," said Rachel Simmons, the director of the Phoebe Reese Lewis Leadership Program at Smith College. "Be smart, but not too smart. Tell us what happened, but don't yell. Smile and be nice above all."

In her prepared remarks, Dr. Blasey explained that the reason she had not spoken up earlier was that she believed "my voice would be drowned out by a chorus of powerful supporters."

Drowned out it was not. How it may change things for the next storyteller remains the question.

A version of this article appears in print on , on Page A17 of the New York edition with the headline: Witness Walking a 'Tightrope' of Testifying While Female. Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The 'Tight Rope' of Testifying While Female

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
She dressed modestly, in a navy suit and dark-rimmed glasses. No flashy jewelry, little makeup. She is a professor and psychologist with an impressive C.V. She is white, and blond, and pretty - but not too pretty - with an intact family, suburban home and children.

# data[].attributes.headline
Abir Elkallini                      Harris vs Kavanaugh

# data[].attributes.subject
Abir Elkallini                      Harris vs Kavanaugh

# data[].attributes.body
I just couldn't stop laughing at how he was stuttering when she was asking him the questions. He reminded me of a little kid that drew on the wall at home and denied it. On a serious note, I believe he indeed met with someone at the firm of Trump's lawyer and hid many details and chains of emails from the past.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sen. Harris asks Kavanaugh if he discussed the Mueller investigation with law firm tied to Trump

# data[].attributes.body
Trump argues that #Metoo movement has unfairly threatened the livelihoods of powerful men. How dangerous is it for the President to cast doubt on the credibility of victims of sexual abuse?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
September 26, 2018
President Trump on Wednesday placed himself at the center of the anguished national debate over sexual assault, suggesting in his defense of embattled Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh that the #MeToo movement was "very dangerous" and unfairly threatened an entire class of powerful men.

Trump's expansive argument cast doubt on the credibility not only of the three women who have accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault, but also on scores of other women who have claimed sexual abuse by prominent men, including the president himself.

In his defiant rush to rescue Kavanaugh's nomination, Trump effectively sought to draw a line in the sand against the growing number of allegations that have felled male authority figures in politics, the media and business - including many, Trump acknowledged, who have been his friends.

"When you are guilty until proven innocent, it's just not supposed to be that way," Trump told reporters. "That's a very dangerous standard for the country."

During a freewheeling, 81-minute news conference Wednesday in New York, Trump was asked whether the sexual assault or harassment allegations brought against him by more than a dozen women - claims he denies - influenced his thinking about Kavanaugh's accusers.

"Absolutely," Trump said.

"I've had a lot of false charges made against me, really false charges," he added. "I know friends that have had false charges. People want fame. They want money. They want whatever. So when I see it, I view it differently then somebody sitting home watching television, where they say, 'Oh, Judge Kavanaugh this or that.' It's happened to me many times."

On the eve of Thursday's high-stakes Senate hearing that likely will determine whether Kavanaugh is confirmed to the high court, Trump appointed himself the judge's principal character witness and moved to personally navigate one of the most acute crises of his presidency.

The president said he stood by Kavanaugh, but he also left open the possibility of withdrawing his nomination if he is persuaded of the judge's guilt after watching Thursday's testimony from him and his first accuser, Christine Blasey Ford.

Some of the first cracks in confidence emerged inside the White House on Wednesday as a third woman came forward - alleging sexual misconduct against others by Kavanaugh in high school - and there were growing worries that the nomination might go down. But there was also a hardening resolve to press forward and fight back once attorney Michael Avenatti - who represents Trump accuser Stormy Daniels and is toying with a 2020 presidential run - entered the fray Wednesday representing the latest Kavanaugh accuser.

Trump and his advisers and allies expressed genuine anxiety about Thursday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. Aides found it difficult to mobilize surrogates - especially female high school friends and other women who know Kavanaugh personally - to blanket the airwaves defending the judge's character.

The president has acknowledged uncertainty about how the hearing will go and how Kavanaugh might be perceived, and he has begun laying the groundwork to blame Senate Republican leaders should the nomination fail, according to people who have spoken with him or have been briefed on conversations

With so much in limbo, there was no grand strategy at play other than Trump's call for a more forceful defense of Kavanaugh. The president and his aides concluded that they have a narrowing window of time during which to push Kavanaugh through before his nomination becomes even more tainted.

Trump is confronting both his own personal grievances with the #MeToo reckoning and his responsibilities as leader of the Republican Party, whose congressional majorities are at risk six weeks from now in the midterm elections. Aides have said Trump feels vindicated politically on this issue because he was elected despite the "Access Hollywood" recording in which he bragged to Billy Bush about grabbing women by their genitals.

Either outcome in the Kavanaugh fight is likely to have far-reaching impact on both the upcoming elections and the next two years of the Trump presidency, according to strategists in both parties. Kavanaugh's confirmation could help inspire more Republicans to turn out to vote in November, but it could also motivate Democrats and alienate some female voters from the GOP for years to come. A failed nomination, meanwhile, could deeply divide the Republican coalition and suppress voter turnout.

As Trump answered a succession of questions in Wednesday's news conference about Kavanaugh and sexual assault, one veteran Republican lawmaker called The Washington Post to wonder aloud whether a White House aide could gently nudge the president off the stage or else risk further unnerving Republicans. Allies of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said they were uneasy late Wednesday about the myriad ways events could spiral out of control on Thursday.

Vice President Pence traveled to the Capitol on Wednesday to reassure Senate Republicans at their regular closed-door lunch. The vice president reaffirmed his and the president's support of Kavanaugh, saying he was confident it would be "a respectful and fair process" for all involved and criticizing the Democrats for conducting themselves "disgracefully," according to a White House official.

"We stand with the nominee," Pence told the senators, according to the official.

For Kavanaugh, who spent the day hunkered down with White House counsel Donald McGahn and other advisers, the pressure is intense to improve upon his performance in a Fox News Channel interview earlier this week. The judge has told White House aides that he would answer any question posed to him at Thursday's hearing, even those that are incredibly personal, according to officials involved in the preparations.

Kavanaugh received mixed reviews for his Fox interview from critics - including Trump, who told aides that he thought the judge came across as weak, unconvincing and insufficiently indignant, according to people who spoke with him.

The president, who has closely monitored news coverage and cable commentary from his perch in New York, where he is attending the United Nations General Assembly, wondered aloud whether Kavanaugh should have even sat for the interview, advisers said.

Trump wants to see the judge with a more combative posture, according to aides, and has said he is willing to fight for Kavanaugh as long as the judge is willing to fight for himself.

Matt Schlapp, chairman of the American Conservative Union, said, "My advice to Brett is, throw away scripts, speak from the heart, answer openly and be proud of the man you are and the life you've lived. There's not an American who doesn't look at this situation and realize that girls become women and boys become men, and along that path, you have lots of experiences and make lots of decisions."

Kavanaugh, through White House intermediaries, was being urged to defend himself on television from almost the moment the New Yorker published accusations from a second woman, Deborah Ramirez, on Sunday night. Senate Republicans began to make clear to the White House that the situation had moved from poor to "red-alert crisis," as one Republican adviser in touch with GOP senators described it.

Instead of just issuing statements and talking points, Senate Republicans insisted that Kavanaugh had to give them some clarity about where he stood and help his own cause, the adviser said.

Trump initially wanted Kavanaugh to appear on television and defend himself - an unusual strategy for a Supreme Court nominee - and there was consideration by aides about having him conduct a broader media blitz.

There were deliberations for days about whether Kavanaugh should appear on the conservative-leaning Fox News or a more mainstream national broadcast network, according to two people familiar with the planning.

Veteran CBS News correspondent Jan Crawford, who has written books on the Supreme Court and interviewed several justices on camera, was discussed by top White House aides as a possible option. But after lengthy discussions with Kavanaugh, Fox News anchor Martha MacCallum was selected, mostly because of the judge's comfort level with the idea, according to the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly reveal internal deliberations.

"Fox was the safest bet," one adviser said.

Kavanaugh was acutely aware that Trump and other senior aides thought he needed to be more forceful with his denials than he was in his Fox interview, which is why he issued a statement Wednesday calling the allegations brought by Avenatti's client "from the Twilight Zone," according to someone familiar with the drafting of it.

On Tuesday, Trump told advisers that he had grown tired of seeing Kavanaugh dominate the headlines, according to people who have spoken with him.

So on Wednesday, the president took Kavanaugh's defense into his own hands, defending him in multiple appearances before reporters at the United Nations. In recent days, advisers said, the president has complained bitterly that McConnell and Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) have been getting "played like a bunch of fools" by agreeing to Democratic demands to slow the pace of Kavanaugh's confirmation.

"They could have pushed it through two and a half weeks ago, and you wouldn't be talking about it right now - which is, frankly, what I would have preferred," Trump told reporters Wednesday. "But they didn't do that."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Defending Kavanaugh, Trump laments #MeToo as 'very dangerous' for powerful men

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
September 26, 2018 President Trump on Wednesday placed himself at the center of the anguished national debate over sexual assault, suggesting in his defense of embattled Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh that the #MeToo movement was "very dangerous" and unfairly threatened an entire class of powerful men.

# data[].attributes.body
Those given the honor to analyze the law are not subject to it

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WASHINGTON - All of the ethics complaints filed against Justice Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation proceedings were dismissed on Tuesday after a panel of federal judges concluded that Kavanaugh is no longer covered by the judiciary's disciplinary process.

While Kavanaugh's nomination was pending over the summer and into the fall, dozens of ethics complaints were filed against him, including allegations that he hadn't been truthful when he testified before the Senate during his confirmation hearings, and that his fiery criticism of Democrats and his other detractors at a hearing on the sexual assault and harassment allegations against him in September showed bias and a lack of judicial temperament.

In total, 83 complaints were filed against Kavanaugh. Some were more formal than others. In Tuesday's order, the Judicial Council of the 10th Circuit said it had "greatly liberalized" the standards for accepting complaints, even accepting postcards as long as they identified who had filed the claim.

Legal ethics experts previously told BuzzFeed News that they expected the ethics complaints filed against Kavanaugh to be dismissed once he was confirmed to the Supreme Court, but they also said it was an unusual situation. The 10th Circuit council took on the Kavanaugh complaints after they were transferred from Kavanaugh's former court, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, by Chief Justice John Roberts in October. The judges on the council wrote that the federal law that laid out the process for pursuing ethics complaints against federal judges did not apply to Supreme Court justices.

"The allegations contained in the complaints are serious, but the Judicial Council is obligated to adhere to the [Judicial Conduct and Disability] Act," the 10th Circuit panel wrote.

The complainants can appeal the council's decision. Kavanaugh declined to comment through a spokesperson for the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court justices are not bound by the federal judiciary's code of conduct that applies to lower court judges, and the high court does not have its own formal internal disciplinary system. Justices have to follow federal laws that require them to recuse if a case presents a conflict of interest, but each justice handles the decision about whether to step aside from a case on their own.

The Judicial Conduct and Disability Act specifically lists the types of judges covered by the law, including circuit judges, district judges, bankruptcy judges, and magistrate judges. It doesn't refer to Supreme Court justices. The law also says that ethics cases could end because of "intervening events," such as the judge no longer serving in that position. When Congress intended a law to apply to the justices, it made a point of doing so explicitly, the 10th Circuit panel wrote.

Kavanaugh was confirmed on Oct. 6, following a bitter fight over his nomination that extended far beyond the walls of the Senate. One of Kavanaugh's high school peers, Christine Blasey Ford, came forward with allegations that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when they were in high school at a house party, and other women later accused him of sexual misconduct in high school and college as well. Kavanaugh denied the accusations.

Ford and Kavanaugh testified before the Senate on Sept. 28, and Kavanaugh in his opening remarks angrily lashed out at Democrats in Congress, the Clinton family, and "left-wing opposition groups."

Those comments prompted some of the ethics complaints against him.

DC Circuit Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson and the DC Circuit Judicial Council - Chief Judge Merrick Garland recused himself - had asked Roberts to transfer the complaints against Kavanaugh to another circuit. It was a request in line with how federal courts in recent years have dealt with high-profile ethics cases; judges who previously asked for transfers cited a desire to avoid conflict-of-interest issues.

The 10th Circuit on Tuesday also published an order from Chief Judge Timothy Tymkovich denying a request that he disqualify himself from handling the Kavanaugh complaints. The person who made the request - they aren't named - had claimed Kavanaugh advocated for Tymkovich's nomination to the 10th Circuit in 2003, when Kavanaugh was working in the White House. Tymkovich wrote that the only evidence of Kavanaugh's involvement was an email after Tymkovich was confirmed, suggesting a press release about judicial nominations.

Tymkovich, like Kavanaugh, was on President Donald Trump's shortlist of candidates for the Supreme Court.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
All 83 Of The Ethics Complaints Against Justice Brett Kavanaugh Were Dismissed Because He's On The Supreme Court Now

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WASHINGTON - All of the ethics complaints filed against Justice Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation proceedings were dismissed on Tuesday after a panel of federal judges concluded that Kavanaugh is no longer covered by the judiciary's disciplinary process.

# data[].attributes.body
Yup.

# data[].attributes.body
This incident also triggered another viral hashtag wave of #WhyIDidntReport among the survivors of sexual violence. This tweet is a good example of the intention behind such hashtag.

# data[].attributes.body
I think this is important because it is showing the effects of a sexual offender being elected into the Supreme Court. It is also giving awareness to sexual assault within different communities. The first woman that shared was sexually assaulted while serving in the Navy, so it shows that this is a problem within all sectors of government. It also gives insight into the lives of "normal people" because these people were not assaulted by any of the people that are within the limelight.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Anti-Judge Brett Kavanaugh Protesters Share Their #MeToo Moments | NBC News

# data[].attributes.body
This Vox article has an infographic representing the amount of times both Ford and Kavanaugh answered or avoided a question

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There were several noticeable differences between the Senate testimony of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and the woman accusing him of sexual assault, Christine Blasey Ford.

The most obvious was the tone each took. Ford was polite and quiet in recounting her accusation against Kavanaugh; he was angry and loud in his denials of the allegations against him.

Beyond the style of their testimonies, there was a striking difference in the content of their words. Both Ford and Kavanaugh fielded questions from senators and the prosecutor hired by Republicans, Rachel Mitchell.

But only Ford made an effort to answer every single question.

Kavanaugh actively dodged questions. He often repeated the same non-answer over and over. Other times, he insisted on answering a question with "context" - which inevitably was a long story about his childhood - but never actually answered the question.

We went through the transcript of the hearing and noted every single time a question was asked of Ford and Kavanaugh. (We didn't include the times a questioner didn't ask an explicit question.) Then we noted every instance in which answered the question or said they didn't know the answer - and we also noted every time they either refused to answer or gave an answer that didn't address the question. Here are the results:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Every time Ford and Kavanaugh dodged a question, in one chart

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There were several noticeable differences between the Senate testimony of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and the woman accusing him of sexual assault, Christine Blasey Ford. The most obvious was the tone each took. Ford was polite and quiet in recounting her accusation against Kavanaugh; he was angry and loud in his denials of the allegations against him.

# data[].attributes.body
This is a great source for individuals who prefer informing oneself with audio during their commute or on spare time. The "Daily" podcast is a part of the "New York Times." This episode covers some of the mixed opinions and stories told by Judge Kavanaugh's classmates. The classmates do not necessarily take the side of Judge Kavanaugh, so it was interesting to me when I first heard about it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
"Kavanaugh's Classmates Speak Out" from The Daily by The New York Times on Apple Podcasts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A New York Times investigation found that inside a Brooklyn jail, more than 1,000 inmates were locked inside freezing cells for 23 hours a day, prompting an inquiry by the Justice Department. But the involvement of the Justice Department may not be the turning point it appears to be.

# data[].attributes.headline
Trina Rojas -Justin Fairfax accusers want Kavanaugh-style public hearings in Virginia 

# data[].attributes.subject
Trina Rojas -Justin Fairfax accusers want Kavanaugh-style public hearings in Virginia 

# data[].attributes.body
This case is really important. It will help to bring more social awareness about the #metoo movement and the voices of victims. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justin-fairfax-accusers-want-kavanaugh-style-public-hearings-in-virginia

# data[].attributes.body
Case Study: Kavanaugh Hearings

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Kavanaugh faces questions on abortion, executive power in 2nd day of confirmation hearing

On the second day of his confirmation hearings, Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh declined to reveal much about where he stands on major issues, but told lawmakers that he would respect judicial precedent should he serve on the high court.

Perhaps what has been more enlightening from the hearing thus far is what Kavanaugh hasn't answered or refused to provide clear indications on.

On Roe v. Wade, Kavanaugh repeated to lawmakers time and time again that he understands the "importance of precedence" in the decision of the landmark case for women's reproductive rights.

He reaffirmed his view is that the case is "settled precedent of the Supreme Court" and it has "been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years." He neglected, however to explicitly say where he stands on the issue.

On Executive power, Kavanaugh affirmed to lawmakers that "no one is above the law" but declined to answer questions on hypothetical cases of whether nor not the president could pardon himself.

On presidential loyalty: Pressed on whether he owes loyalty to President Trump, Kavanaugh said, holding up a worn, personal copy of the legal document, "if confirmed to the Supreme Court and as a sitting judge, I owe my loyalty to the Constitution."

Follow along for live updates of the hearing:

Kavanaugh hearing adjourned

Sen. Thom Tillis adjourned the Kavanaugh hearing after 10 p.m., after over 12 hours. The hearing will start back up Thursday at 9:30 a.m.

Kavanaugh asked about Mueller investigation, Russia meddling

Sen. Kamala Harris asked if Kavanaugh discussed special counsel Robert Mueller with anyone.

"The fact that it's on going, it's in the news every day ... it's in the courthouse in the District of Columbia ... the answer is yes," Kavanaugh said.

Harris pressed further, asking if he discussed with "anyone in the law firm of Kasowitz, Benson and Torres, the law firm founded by President Trump's personal lawyer? Be sure about your answer, sir."

Kavanaugh said he was "not remembering" and then when pressed further, he said "I would like to know who you are referring to."

"I think you're thinking of someone and you don't want to tell us," Harris responded.

Booker questions Kavanaugh about racial profiling

Cory Booker, D-New Jersey, asked Kavanaugh about affirmative action and voting rights. Booker asked repeatedly if Kavanaugh believes race-conscious policies are constitutionally valid to remedy past discrimination. Kavanaugh answered "the Supreme Court says it is," with Booker saying "I know what the Supreme Court has said, I want to know what you think."

Kavanaugh wouldn't say if he agrees with Supreme Court precedent on this issue.

Booker asked about voting rights, and said "your answers don't provide me comfort."

Booker also said there was an email entitled "Racial Profiling" that was designated "Committee Confidential." "The fact that we have not allowing these emails out as we have asked, as I have asked, joined a letter with my colleagues asking, and that's why I am saying the system is rigged," Booker said.

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, said he agreed and he doesn't know why they marked confidential.

Committee takes half hour recess

The Judiciary Committee took a half hour recess beginning at 7:40 p.m. New Jersey Democratic Sen. Cory Booker questions Kavanaugh when session resumes.

Hirono questions Kavanaugh about sexual harassment

Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii began her testimony by asking Kavanaugh if he had ever conducted sexual harassment or assault, or faced discipline or paid a settlement related to those issues, which she said was a way to make sure the #MeToo movement would apply to judges appointed to lifetime positions. Hirono has been asking all of Mr. Trump's judicial nominee these two questions.

Hirono then asked about Kavanaugh's relationship with former Judge Alex Kozinski, a judge for the 9th Circuit who had been accused of sexual misconduct by several women, asking if he had seen any evidence of Kozinski's pattern of sexual misconduct over thirty years. Kavanaugh denied that he knew anything about Kozinski's inappropriate behavior towards women.

"You saw nothing, you heard nothing, and you obviously said nothing," Hirono said. She then asked if Kavanaugh believed the women who had accused Kozinski.

"I have no reason not to believe them, senator," Kavanaugh responded. He said that if he had known about Kozinski's behavior, he would have contacted his superiors on the court, including Chief Judge Merrick Garland, and even Chief Justice John Roberts.

Hirono noted that Kavanaugh has considered himself an advocate for women, but seemed skeptical that he had no knowledge of Kozinski's behavior.

Committee is back in session

Connecticut Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal questioned Kavanaugh after the recess. He asked Kavanaugh about his views on Roe v. Wade, which the nominee deflected using previous arguments that he could not commit to hypotheticals of whether he would vote to overturn that decision.

Committee breaks for recess

At 5:23 p.m., the Senate Judiciary Committee began a ten minute recess, to be followed by questions from Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal.

Kavanaugh sidesteps questions on presidential authority

Delaware Democratic Sen. Chris Coons asked Kavanaugh whether he would vote to overturn Morrison v. Olson, a 1988 Supreme Court decision which would upheld the constitutionality of creating an independent counsel under the 1978 Ethics in Government Act. The law expired in 1999, and now special counsels are governed by Justice Department regulations.

Kavanaugh told a conservative group in 2016 that he wanted to "put the final nail in the coffin" of Morrison v. Olson. Coons asked whether Kavanaugh would vote to overturn Morrison v. Olson, and whether he believed a special counsel is "fireable at will" of the president.

Kavanaugh declined to answer, saying that he could not weigh in about a hypothetical future case.

However, Kavanaugh told Republican Sen. Ben Sasse that no president had "immunity" from being charged for a civil or criminal crime. He said that the important question was when charges against the president should be brought -- while he or she is in office, or after he or she leaves office.

Kavanaugh repeatedly interrupted by protesters

Throughout the day, Kavanaugh was repeatedly interrupted by protesters, who yelled criticism of the judge before being escorted from the room. The protesters shouted slogans such as "we will not go back," referring to the fear among some on the left that the Supreme Court would overturn Roe v. Wade if Kavanaugh is confirmed.

Democrats try to shut down hearing by invoking a procedural rule

While Kavanaugh continued questioning, a bit of drama played out on the Senate floor as Democrats invoked a rarely enforced Senate rule against holding committee meetings past the first two hours of the Senate's day in the hopes of derailing the Kavanaugh hearing.

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell asked for the Judiciary committee to be allowed to meet during today's session to which Schumer, denied, saying the public and Senate Democrats have not received the documents they need and Republicans are trying to "jam through" the nomination of Kavanaugh.

Usually both sides agree by unanimous consent to allow committees to meet while the Senate is in session.

Leader McConnell adjourned the Senate floor for the day, which will allow the Judiciary Committee to continue to meet for the remainder of the day.

Kavanaugh on immigration abortion case: "I'm a judge" not policy maker

Pressed on his role in the case of a pregnant 17-year old girl seeking an abortion while being held in a Texas facility for immigrant children, Kavanaugh argued, "I'm a judge, I'm not making the policy decision." The teen ultimately had the abortion as the government prepared to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Kavanaugh, in his dissent in the case, accepted that Roe v. Wade precedent applied to the teenager in the case. He did, however, side with the Trump administration who said as a minor, the girl should have consulted with an adult first before the procedure.

"I'm deciding if policy is consistent with Supreme Court precedent," he added. He said in his ruling he did the "best I could."

Slamming process, Durbin says it's on Kavanaugh to be transparent

Durbin, harping back to Democrats' strategy on Tuesday, slammed the confirmation process and the lack of access to documents on Kavanaugh's record. Durbin asked Kavanaugh if he was part of the decision making process in not releasing the entirety of documents to which Kavanaugh said that was not a decision for the nominee to make.

Durbin further pressed Kavanaugh, saying he could have asked for the public release of documents in the spirit of transparency.

"It's up to you...to say I don't want a cloud or shadow" over the hearing.

Hearing comes back to order

Kavanaugh returned just after 12:45 p.m. with questioning kicking off with Sen. Dick Durbin.

Senate breaks for short recess

Promptly at 12:15 p.m., the Committee took it's first break of the day for lunch break and votes. The hearing will adjourn for 30 minutes.

In lighter moment, Kavanaugh reflects on how he'd like to be remembered

In a rare moment of levity for the confirmation process, Sen. Graham asked Kavanaugh how he'd like to be remembered after all is said and done.

A moment of levity on day two of Kavanaugh confirmation hearings --

Sen. Graham (R-SC): "...how would you like to be remembered?"
Kavanaugh: "A good dad. A good judge."
Sen. Feinstein (D-CA): "Good husband."
[laughter]
Kavanaugh: "A good husband." https://t.co/irsDUUh69l pic.twitter.com/zp1hQsqcHs
- CBS Evening News (@CBSEveningNews) September 5, 2018

Kavanaugh: "A good dad. A good judge." Sen. Feinstein then interrupted: "Good husband." The chamber broke into laughs as Kavanaugh repeated after the ranking member.

Kavanaugh won't answer questions on pardons

Asked if the president has the authority to pardon himself, Kavanaugh said that the issue of self pardons is "something I've never analyzed...or written about." calling it a "hypothetical question that I can't begin to answer in this context as a sitting judge and nominee."

Leahy, Grassley and Kavanaugh get in spat over emails

Over the course of Sen. Pat Leahy's questioning, the Democrat pressed Kavanaugh over confidential emails that suggested Kavanaugh might have been more involved in a scandal stemming from a hacking of Senate Democrats' emails than he originally lead on, including from Leahy's office, during his time in the Bush White House.

Allegations at the time claim that Republican operatives hacked into the computers of Democratic senators to steal information about what Democrats were planning to ask President Bush's judicial nominees. After having Kavanaugh read through emails during the hearing, the judge was adamant that he was not aware the information he received had been stolen.

Leahy suggested Kavanaugh had misled the Senate during separate hearings back in 2004 and 2006 on the matter, saying that "Truthfulness under oath is not an optional qualification for a Supreme Court nominee."

Kavanaugh later told Sen. Lindsey Graham that he never knowingly stole emails or documents from Sen. Leahy's office.

Kavanaugh pressed on environmental rulings

"I am not a skeptic of regulation," Kavanaugh said. "I am a skeptic of unauthorized regulation."

The judge, who has raised concerns amongst activists over how he might sway the court's favor in future rulings on environmental-based cases, defended his background as saying in some cases he's ruled against environmental interests, and many other for environmental interests. Kavanaugh cited rulings involving the American Trucking Association and stricter air quality standards as cases where he sided with environmental interests.

Kavanaugh on empowering women in courts

Kavanaugh said that there's a pipeline problem for women gaining access to jobs within the judicial system.

"What it takes is just not accepting the same-old answer," he said. "I try to figure out why, and then do something about it."

When pressed on prominent appeals court Judge Alex Kozinski, who resigned after more than a dozen women alleged he subjected them to inappropriate sexual conduct and harassment, Kavanaugh called the reports a "gut punch."

"It was a gut punch to me. It was a gut punch to the judiciary. I was shocked and disappointed. Angry. No woman should be subject to sexual harassment in the workplace."

Kavanaugh denied that he was ever aware of the allegations against Kozinksi, saying he only learned about them through initial news reports.

Kavanaugh says loyalty is to Constitution, not president

Asked what assurances he could give that he would not allow the president's personal views or interests to sway his views on the court, Kavanaugh said that he is an "independent judge" and if confirmed, he will base his decisions on the Constitution and precedent "without fear or favor, independently without pressure from any quarter."

"The person with the best arguments on the law is the person that will win with me," he added.

Pressed on if what loyalty he owes to the president, Kavanaugh said, holding up a worn, personal copy of the legal document, "if confirmed to the Supreme Court and as a sitting judge, I owe my loyalty to the Constitution."

Kavanaugh won't answer if sitting president can be subpoenaed

Feinstein: "Can a sitting president have to respond to a subpoena?"

Kavanaugh: "As a sitting judge and a nominee ... I can't give you an answer to a hypothetical."

Kavanaugh provides no clear answers on Roe v. Wade

Without explicitly saying where he stands on the issue, Kavanaugh, in his questioning with Feinstein, said that he understands the "importance of precedence" in the decision of Roe v. Wade.

He reaffirmed his view is that the case is "settled precedent of the Supreme Court" and it has "been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years."

Kavanaugh said that while he understands the importance of the issue, he doesn't "live in a bubble" on the debate over women's reproductive rights.

On a woman's right to choose, Kavanaugh again said his view "as a judge, it is important precedent of the Supreme Court."

Feinstein, Kavanaugh spar over assault weapons

Asked by Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein what led to his view that an assault weapons ban such as the one in Washington, DC is considered "unconstitutional", Kavanaugh said he was simply following precedent from the Supreme Court "whether he agreed with it or not."

"The way I understood was that dangerous and unusual weapons could be prohibited," explained Kavanaugh. He argued that assault weapons are widely used and possessed in the U.S.

"The question is are they a danger and unusual," he added.

Kavanaugh: "No one is above the law"

No one is above the law in our constitutional system," said Kavanaugh when asked about his position on judicial independence and the separation of powers among the three branches of government.

"The executive branch is subject to the law, that's an important part of the constitutional structure," he added. Kavanaugh said resisting public pressures, political pressure and treating everyone equally no matter their race, gender, station in life or position in the federal government is vital to ensuring equal justice under the law.

"I'm a pro-law judge...If you walk into my courtroom and you have the better legal arguments, you will win"

Kavanaugh said there have been a "slew of cases" where he has ruled against the administration that appointed him. Asked if he had been asked to give assurances about the way he would rule in certain cases, Kavanaugh replied: "No."

Kavanaugh says "independence" makes a good judge

In his very first question of the hearing, Kavanaugh said that the quality of a good judge is independence from political pressures or other entities. He said that not being swayed by outside politics takes "back bone." He added that judges are "constitutionally dictated to heed the rules of precedent ."

As for human qualities, Kavanaugh said he would be congenial with his fellow justices on the high court. He said that "unanimity of decisions" adds force to the court's rulings.

Kavanaugh agreed with Grassley when pressed on not giving forecasts or previews on how he might rule on a given case or specific precedent he might favor.

"One of the things that I have to remember sitting in this seat that this moment is a moment of judicial independence with how I interact with this committee," he said. Kavanaugh said following "nominee precedent" of prior justices not tipping their hat on how they would serve on the court is "critical" to an impartial confirmation process.

"I must adhere to my job which is not to advance my own interests, I'm a representative of the judiciary as a whole and I have a responsibility to judicial independence right here right now as a nominee."

Day two begins with questions

Just after 9:30 a.m. Grassley began the proceedings into questioning Kavanaugh.

What to expect for day two

Kavanaugh is likely to face intense grilling from senate lawmakers during the question and answer portion of the confirmation hearing. Here's a look at what to expect on day two:

Democrats pushing for delay

Democrats are likely to deploy a similar coordinated strategy they used on day one of the hearing by interrupting the start of the hearing to call for delays in the proceedings until senators get access to all of Kavanaugh's documents.

Democrats including Richard Blumenthal, Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar and Kamala Harris all devoted over an hour of hearing time appealing to Chairman Chuck Grassley to adjourn the hearing until Democrats could thoroughly go over the records. Grassley, after being called out for conducting the hearing with "mob rule", repeatedly slammed the Democrats as being out of order.

Abortion

How exactly Kavanaugh views abortion access is still murky at best. He has approved some restrictions on abortion, such as for an underage undocumented immigrant who wanted one. But he also gives much weight to precedent. After meeting with Kavanaugh last month, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said Kavanaugh assured her that he views Roe v. Wade as "settled law."

Executive privilege and power

Perhaps the key issue for Kavanaugh will be his loyalty to President Trump and whether or not he believes a sitting president can be indicted in light of the ongoing Russia probe which so far has led to two guilty convictions for former Trump campaign associates.

In 2009, Kavanaugh seemed to suggest that presidents should be immune from criminal prosecutions and investigations until after leaving office, writing, "I believe it vital that the president be able to focus on his never-ending tasks with as few distractions as possible."

First published on September 5, 2018

© 2018 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Brett Kavanaugh hearings: SCOTUS nominee vague on Roe v. Wade, says loyalty is to Constitution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On the second day of his confirmation hearings, Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh declined to reveal much about where he stands on major issues, but told lawmakers that he would respect judicial precedent should he serve on the high court.

# data[].attributes.body
Article describes life after controversy for Brett Kavanaugh.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Brett Kavanaugh has his new day job on the nation's highest court but is still " Coach K" on the basketball court.

The Supreme Court's newest justice was back in action over the Thanksgiving holiday leading his younger daughter's team to the championship game of a tournament in the Washington suburbs.

In one of the more contentious moments of his bruising confirmation battle, Kavanaugh lamented that sexual assault allegations against him might mean he would have to give up coaching.

"I love coaching more than anything I've ever done in my whole life," Kavanaugh said during the Senate hearing in which he angrily denied Christine Blasey Ford's allegation that he assaulted her when they were teenagers in the 1980s.

"But thanks to what some of you on this side of the committee have unleashed," he said, referring to the panel's Democrats, "I may never be able to coach again."

In the seven weeks since Kavanaugh was narrowly confirmed to the high court amid mass protests, he has kept a low public profile.

Kavanaugh skipped the traditional walk with the chief justice down the Supreme Court steps after his formal investiture. The court cited security concerns. He was not the featured speaker at the Federalist Society's annual gala this month, as Justice Neil Gorsuch was in 2017 shortly after his confirmation.

But Kavanaugh has quietly returned to some rhythms of the life he led before his confirmation, when he was a judge on the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C.

Joe Sego, who organized the Turkey Shootout tournament in Hyattsville, Md., last weekend, said he never doubted Kavanaugh's reemergence on the basketball court even with heightened concerns about the justice's schedule, security - and the possibility of public protests.

"I was very concerned when the confirmation hearings were going on that we could run into some issues," Sego said in an interview Tuesday. "But I figured since a little bit of time had gone on, and things had kind of settled down, that it would be OK - and it was. There was no issue whatsoever."

The presence of Kavanaugh's Secret Service detail added a new dimension to the tournament. One father, whose son was playing in the tournament, tweeted a photo of Kavanaugh on the court at DeMatha Catholic High School.

"He had security, but there was no commotion," said Sego, a coach and athletic director at St. Jerome's in Hyattsville.

Kavanaugh's return to coaching was first reported by Deadspin.

From the moment President Donald Trump announced his nomination in July, Kavanaugh's enthusiasm for coaching his daughters, Margaret and Liza, was part of his own narrative as a champion for girls. Parents of his players from the Blessed Sacrament parish in the Chevy Chase neighborhood of Washington, D.C., submitted a formal letter to the Senate. They praised "Coach K" as a "devoted coach and mentor to our daughters" and a "true student of the game."

More than a dozen current and former players sat behind Kavanaugh in the committee room during the first, less heated round of hearings before Ford's sexual assault allegations were reported. He introduced by name each of the girls, who wore the plaid jumpers and kilts of their school uniform.

"I love helping the girls grow into confident players. I know that confidence on the basketball court translates into confidence in other aspects of life," Kavanaugh said.

The appearance of the girls in uniform prompted complaints from some Blessed Sacrament families.

It also attracted criticism more broadly that he was invoking his support of the team as part of a larger effort to blunt objections to his judicial record, including on abortion rights.

Kavanaugh's passion for girls' hoops has not subsided despite his new role.

He texted Sego, the tournament organizer, late Sunday to find out which team had won the under-14 division, even though his older daughter's team was not in contention. Riverdale Baptist defeated Little Flower.

In the under-12 championship match, Kavanaugh's team faced an uphill battle and lost to Holy Redeemer of Kensington, Md.

"He knew he was a big underdog," said Sego, who was seated by the bench and could hear Kavanaugh coaching.

"It's easy to get frustrated with a group of preteens, but he had his girls fighting all game long."
First published by The Washington Post

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Justice Brett Kavanaugh is back on the basketball court

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Brett Kavanaugh has his new day job on the nation's highest court but is still " Coach K" on the basketball court. The Supreme Court's newest justice was back in action over the Thanksgiving holiday leading his younger daughter's team to the championship game of a tournament in the Washington suburbs.

# data[].attributes.body
#The-receipts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF BRETT M.
KAVANAUGH TO BE AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT, DAY 5,
FOCUSING ON ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT

SEPTEMBER 27, 2018

SPEAKERS:
SEN. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, R-IOWA, CHAIRMAN

SEN. ORRIN G. HATCH, R-UTAH

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-S.C.

SEN. JOHN CORNYN, R-TEXAS

SEN. MIKE LEE, R-UTAH

SEN. TED CRUZ, R-TEXAS

SEN. JEFF FLAKE, R-ARIZ.

SEN. THOM TILLIS, R-N.C.

SEN. BEN SASSE, R-NEB.

SEN. MICHAEL D. CRAPO, R-IDAHO

SEN. JOHN KENNEDY, R-LA.

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, D-CALIF., RANKING MEMBER

SEN. PATRICK J. LEAHY, D-VT.

SEN. RICHARD J. DURBIN, D-ILL.

SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, D-R.I.

SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR, D-MINN.

SEN. CHRIS COONS, D-DEL.

SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, D-CONN.

SEN. MAZIE K. HIRONO, D-HAWAII

SEN. CORY BOOKER, D-N.J.

SEN. KAMALA HARRIS, D-CALIF.

RACHEL MITCHELL, STAFF COUNSEL

WITNESSES:
CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD, KAVANAUGH ACCUSER

MICHAEL BROMWICH, ATTORNEY FOR MS. FORD

JUDGE BRETT M. KAVANAUGH, NOMINATED TO BE AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF
THE SUPREME COURT

[*]
GRASSLEY: This morning we continue our hearing on the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to serve as associate justice on our Supreme Court. We will hear from two witnesses, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Judge Kavanaugh. Thanks, of course, to Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh for accepting our committee's invitation to testify and also thank them for their volunteering to testify before we even invited.

GRASSLEY: Both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh have been through a terrible couple weeks. They and their families have received vile threats. What they have endured ought to be considered by all of us as unacceptable and a poor reflection on the state of civility in our democracy.

So I want to apologize to you both for the way you've been treated. And I intend, hopefully, for today's hearing to be safe, comfortable and dignified for both of our witnesses. I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort of a show of civility.

With that said, I lament that this hearing - how this hearing has come about.

On July the 9th, 2018, the president announced Judge Kavanaugh's nomination to serve on the Supreme Court. Judge Kavanaugh has served on the most important federal appellate court for 12 years. Before that, he held some of the most sensitive positions in the federal government. The president added Judge Kavanaugh to his short list of Supreme Court more than nine months ago, in November 2017.

GRASSLEY: As part of judge Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court, the FBI conducted its sixth full field background investigation of Judge Kavanaugh since 1993, 25 years ago. Nowhere in any of these six FBI reports, which committee investigators have reviewed on a bipartisan basis, was there a whiff of any issue - any issue at all related in any way to inappropriate sexual behavior.

Dr. Ford first raised her allegations in a secret letter to the ranking member nearly two months ago in July. This letter was secret from July 30th, September 13th to - no, July 30th until September 13th when I first heard about it.

The ranking member took no action. The letter wasn't shared with me or colleagues or my staff. These allegations could have been investigated in a way that maintained the confidentiality that Dr. Ford requested.

Before his hearing, Judge Kavanaugh met privately with 65 senators, including the ranking member. But the ranking member didn't ask Judge Kavanaugh about the allegations when she met with him privately in August.

The Senate Judiciary Committee held its four-day public hearing from September 4th to September 7th. Judge Kavanaugh testified for more than 32 hours in public. We held a closed session for members to ask sensitive on that - on the last evening, which the ranking member did not attend.

Judge Kavanaugh answered nearly 1,300 written questions submitted by senators after the hearing, more than all prior Supreme Court nominees.

Throughout this period, we did not know about the ranking member's secret evidence.

Then, only at an 11th hour, on the eve of Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation vote, did the ranking member refer the allegations to the FBI. And then, sadly, the allegations were leaked to the press. And that's where Dr. Ford was mistreated.

This is a shameful way to treat our witness, who insisted on confidentiality, and - and, of course, Judge Kavanaugh, who has had to address these allegations in the midst of a media circus.

When I received Dr. Ford's letter on September the 13th, my staff and I recognized the seriousness of these allegations and immediately began our committee's investigation, consistent with the way the committee has handled such allegations in the past.

Every step of the way the Democratic side refused to participate in what should have been a bipartisan investigation. And as far as I know on all of our judgeships throughout at least the last four years - or three years, that's been the way it's been handled.

After Dr. Ford's identity became public, my staff contacted all the individuals she said attended the 1982 party described in the Washington Post article.

Judge Kavanaugh immediately submitted to an interview under penalty of felony for any knowingly false statements. He denied the allegations categorically.

GRASSLEY: Democratic staff was invited to participate and could have asked any questions they wanted to, but they declined. Which leads me then to wonder: If they're really concerned with going to the truth, why wouldn't you want to talk to the accused?

The process and procedure is what the committee always does when we receive allegations of wrongdoing.

My staff reached out to other individuals allegedly at the party: Mark Judge, Patrick Smyth, Leland Keyser. All three submitted statements to the Senate under - under penalty of felony, denying any knowledge of the events described by Dr. Ford.

Dr. Ford's lifelong friend, Dr. - Miss Keyser, stated she doesn't know Judge Kavanaugh and doesn't recall ever attending a party with him.

My staff made repeated requests to interview Dr. Ford during the past 11 days, even volunteering to fly to California to take her testimony, but her attorneys refused to prevent - present her allegations to Congress. I never - I nevertheless honored her request for a public hearing, so Dr. Ford today has the opportunity to prevent (sic) her allegations under oath.

As you can see, the Judiciary Committee was able to conduct thorough investigations into allegation - thorough investigations into allegations.

Some of my colleagues, consistent with their stated desires to obstruct Kavanaugh's nomination by any means precisely - by any means necessary, pushed for FBI investigations into the allegations. But I have no authority to force the executive branch agency to conduct an investigation into a matter it considers to be closed. Moreover, once the allegations become - became public, it was easy to identify all the alleged witnesses and conduct our own investigations.

Contrary to what the public has been led to believe, the FBI doesn't perform any credibility assessments or verify the truth of any events in these background investigations.

I'll quote then-Chairman Joe Biden during Justice Thomas' confirmation hearing. This is what Senator Biden said, quote, "The next person who refers to an FBI report as being worth anything obviously doesn't understand anything. The FBI explicitly does not, in this or any other case, reach a conclusion, period. They say he - he said, she said, they said, period. So when people wave an FBI report before you, understand, they do not - they do not - they do not reach conclusions. They do not make recommendations," end of Senator Biden's quote.

The FBI provided us with the allegations. Now it's up to the Senate to assess their credibility. Which brings us to this very time.

I look forward to a fair and respectful hearing. That's what we promised Dr. Ford.

Some of my colleagues have complained about the fact that an expert on this side is - investigating sex crimes will be questioning the witness. I see no basis for complaint other than just playing politics.

GRASSLEY: The testimony we will hear today concerns allegations of sexual assault; very serious allegations. This is an incredibly complex and sensitive subject to discuss. It is not an easy one to discuss. That is why the senators on this side of the dais believe an expert who has deep experience and training in interviewing victims of sexual assault and investigating sexual assault alleged - allegations should be asking questions.

This will be in stark contrast to the grandstanding and chaos that we saw from the other side during the previous four days in this hearing process.

I can think of no one better equipped to question the witnesses 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 Attorney's Office, which prosecutes 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 has 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 other 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 attempt to substantiate their claims.

My staff has tried to secure testimony and evidence from attorneys for both Deborah Ramirez and Julie Swetnick. My staff made eight requests - yes, eight requests - for evidence from attorneys for Ms. - Ms. Ramirez, and six requests for evidence for (sic) attorneys for Ms. Swetnick. Neither attorney has made their clients available for interview. The committee can't do an investigation if attorneys are stonewalling.

I hope you all understand that we have attempted to seek additional information, as we do a lot of times when there are holes in what we call the B.I. reports.

Additionally, all the witnesses should know - by - when I say "all the witnesses," I mean Dr. Ford and I mean Judge Kavanaugh - all the witnesses should know that they have the right under Senate Rule 26.5 to ask that the committee go into closed session if a question requires an answer that is a clear invasion of their right to privacy.

If either Dr. Ford or Judge Kavanaugh feel that Senate Rule 26.5 ought to be involved, they should simply say so.

Senator Feinstein?

FEINSTEIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I'll make just a brief comment on your references to me.

Yes, I did receive a letter from Dr. Ford. It was conveyed to me by a member of Congress, Anna Eshoo.

The next day, I called Dr. Ford. We spoke on the phone. She reiterated that she wanted this held confidential. And I held it confidential, up to a point where the witness was willing to come forward.

FEINSTEIN: And I think as I make my remarks, perhaps you'll see why. Because how women are treated in the United States, with this kind of concern, is really wanting a lot of reform. And I'll get to that for a minute.

But in the meantime, good morning, Dr. Ford. Thank you for coming forward and being willing to share your story with us. I know this wasn't easy for you.

But before you get to your testimony - and the chairman chose not to do this - I think it's important to make sure you're properly introduced. And I have to...

GRASSLEY: By the way, I was going to introduce her. But if you want to introduce her, I'll be glad to have you do that.

But I want you to know, I didn't forget to do it, because I would do that just as she was about to speak.

FEINSTEIN: Thank you.

I have to say, when I saw your C.V., I was extremely impressed. You have a bachelor's degree from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; two master's degrees, one from Stanford and one from Pepperdine; and a Ph.D. from the University of Southern California, better known to Senator Harris and I as USC.

You are a professor affiliated with both Stanford University and Palo Alto University. You have published over 65 peer-reviewed articles and have received numerous awards for your work and research.

And as if that were not enough, you are a wife, a mother of two sons and a constituent from California.

So I am very grateful to you for your strength and your bravery in coming forward. I know it's hard.

But before I turn it over, I want to say something about what is to be discussed today and where we are as a country.

Sexual violence is a serious problem and one that largely goes unseen. In the United States it's estimated by the Centers for Disease Control one in three women and one in six men will experience some form of sexual violence in their lifetime.

According to the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network, 60 percent of sexual assaults go unreported. In addition, when survivors do report their assaults, it's often years later due to the trauma they suffered and fearing their stories will not be believed.

Last week I received a letter from a 60-year-old California constituent who told me that she survived an attempted rape at age 17. She described as being terrified and embarrassed. She never told a soul until much later in life. The assault stayed with her for 43 years.

I think it's important to remember these realities as we hear from Dr. Ford about her experience.

There's been a great deal of public discussion about the #MeToo movement today versus the Year of the Woman almost 27 years ago. But while young women are standing up and saying "No more," our institutions have not progressed in how they treat women who come forward. Too often, women's memories and credibility come under assault. In essence, they are put on trial and forced to defend themselves, and often revictimized in the process.

FEINSTEIN: Twenty-seven years ago, I was walking through an airport when I saw a large group of people gathered around a TV to listen to Anita Hill tell her story. What I saw was an attractive woman in a blue suit before an all-male Judiciary Committee, speaking of her experience of sexual harassment. She was treated badly, accused of lying, attacked, and her credibility put to the test throughout the process.

Today, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford has come forward to tell her story of being assaulted and fearing for her life when she was a teenager.

Initially, as I said, Dr. Ford did not want to make her story public. Then within 36 hours of coming forward, Republicans scheduled a hearing without talking to her or even inviting her to testify. She was told she had to show up for the - or the committee would move forward with a vote. It took a public outcry for the - from the majority - excuse me - for the majority to back down and give her even a few days to come before the committee.

Republicans also scheduled this hearing with Dr. Ford without having her allegations investigated by the FBI. In 1991, Anita Hill's allegations were reviewed by the FBI, as is the normal process and squarely within its jurisdiction. However, despite repeated requests, President Trump and the Republicans have refused to take this routine step and direct the FBI to conduct an impartial investigation. This would clearly be the best way to ensure a fair process to both Judge Kavanaugh and to Dr. Ford.

In 1991, the Senate heard from 22 witnesses over three days. Today, while rejecting an FBI investigation, Republicans are refusing to hear testimony from any other witness, including Mark Judge, who Dr. Ford identified as being in the room when the attack took place. And we believe Judge should be subpoenaed so the committee can hear from him directly.

Republicans have also refused to call anyone who could speak to the evidence that would support or refute Dr. Ford's claim, and not one witness who could address credibility and character of either Ford or Kavanaugh has been called.

What I find most inexcusable is this rush to judgment, the unwillingness to take these kinds of allegations at face value and look at them for what they are: a real question of character for someone who is asking for a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court.

In 1991, Republicans belittled Professor Hill's experience, saying, and I quote, "It won't make a bit of difference in the outcome," end quote, and the burden of proof was on Professor Hill.

Today our Republican colleagues are saying, "This is a hiccup," "Dr. Ford is mixed up," and declaring, "I'll listen to the lady, but we're going to bring this to a close."

What's worse, many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have also made it clear that no matter what happens today, the Senate will plow right through and ensure Judge Kavanaugh would be elevated within a week.

FEINSTEIN: In fact, on Tuesday, the majority went ahead and scheduled a vote on the nomination before we heard one word of testimony regarding allegations of sexual assault and misconduct by Brett Kavanaugh. Republican leadership even told senators they should plan to be in over this weekend so the nomination can be pushed through without delay.

This is, despite the fact, that in the last few days two more women have come forward with their own serious allegations of sexual assault involving Brett Kavanaugh.

This past Sunday, we've learned about Debbie Ramirez, who was a student at Yale with Brett Kavanaugh. She, too, did not want to come forward, but after being approached by reporters, she told her story. She was at a college party where Kavanaugh exposed himself to her. She recalls pushing him away and then seeing him laughing and pulling his pants up.

Then yesterday, June (sic) Swetnick came forward to say that she had experiences of being at house parties with Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge. She recounted seeing Kavanaugh engage, and I quote, "in abusive and physically aggressive behavior toward girls," end quote, including attempts to, quote, "remove or shift girls clothing," end quote. Not taking, quote, "no for an answer," grabbing girls, quote "without their consent," end quote, and targeting, quote, "particular girls so that they could be taken advantage of," end quote.

Each of these stories are troubling on their own and each of these allegations should be investigated by the FBI. All three women have said they would like the FBI to investigate; please do so. All three have said they have other witnesses and evidence to corroborate their accounts. And yet Republicans continue to blindly push forward.

So today we're moving forward with a hearing and being asked to assess the credibility of Brett Kavanaugh.

He's made several statements about how his focus was on school, basketball, service projects, and going to church. He declared that he, quote, "never," end quote, drank so much he couldn't remember what happened, and he has, quote, "always treated women with dignity and respect," end quote.

And while he has made these declarations, more and more people have come forward challenging his characterization of events and behaviors.

James Roche, his freshman roommate at Yale, stated Kavanaugh was, and I quote again, "frequently incoherently drunk," end quote, and that was when, quote, "he became aggressive and belligerent," end quote, when he was drunk.

Liz Swisher, a friend of his from Yale, said, and I quote, "There's no medical way I can say that he was blacked out, but it's not credible for him to say that he had no memory lapses in the nights that he drank to excess," end quote.

Lynne Brookes, a college classmate, said the picture Kavanaugh is trying to paint doesn't match her memories of him, and I quote, "He's trying to paint himself as some kind of choirboy. You can't lie your way onto the Supreme Court, and with that statement out he's gone too far. It's about the integrity of the institution," end quote.

FEINSTEIN: Ultimately, members and ladies and gentlemen, I really think that's the point. We're here to decide whether to evaluate (sic) this nominee to the most prestigious court in our country. It's about the integrity of that institution and the integrity of this institution.

The entire country is watching how we handle these allegations. I hope the majority changes their tactics, opens their mind and seriously reflects on why we are here. We are here for one reason: to determine whether Judge Kavanaugh should be elevated to one of the most powerful positions in our country.

This is not a trial of Dr. Ford, it's a job interview for Judge Kavanaugh. Is Brett Kavanaugh who we want on the most prestigious court in our country? Is he the best we can do?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

GRASSLEY: I'm sorry you brought up about the unsubstantiated allegations of other people, because we're here for the sole purpose of listening to Dr. Ford. And we'll consider other issues other times.

I would like to have you rise so I can swear you.

Now you - do you swear that the testimony that you're about to give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

FORD: (OFF-MIKE)

GRASSLEY: Thank you very much. Please be seated.

And before you give your statement, I want to say that - to everybody that she has asked for - any time you ask for a break, you get a break. Any time there's something that you need you don't have, just ask us. And you can have as much time for your opening statement as you want.

And - and just generally let us know if there's any issues.

Proceed, please.

FORD: Thank you, Senator Grassley. I think after I read my opening statement, I anticipate needing some caffeine, if that is available.

GRASSLEY: OK.

Can you pull the microphone just a little bit closer to you, please? Can the whole box go a little bit closer?

(UNKNOWN): That's what I'm trying, Senator. No.

GRASSLEY: OK, well, then - then...

FORD: I'll lean forward.

GRASSLEY: Thank you. Thank you.

FORD: Is this good?

GRASSLEY: Yeah.

FORD: OK.

Thank you, Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein, members of the committee. My name is Christine Blasey Ford. I am a professor of psychology at Palo Alto University and a research psychologist at the Stanford University School of Medicine. I won't detail my educational background since it has already been summarized. I have been married to Russell Ford since 2002 and we have two children.

I am here today not because I want to be. I am terrified. I am here because I believe it is my civic duty to tell you what happened to me while Brett Kavanaugh and I were in high school.

I have described the events publicly before. I summarized them in my letter to Ranking Member Feinstein and again in a letter to Chairman Grassley.

I understand and appreciate the importance of your hearing from me directly about what happened to me and the impact that it has had on my life and on my family.

I grew up in the suburbs of Washington, D.C. I attended the Holton-Arms School in Bethesda, Maryland, from 1978 to 1984. Holton-Arms is an all-girls school that opened in 1901.

FORD: During my time at this school, girls at Holton-Arms frequently met and became friendly with boys from all-boys schools in the area, including the Landon School, Georgetown Prep, Gonzaga High School, as well as our country clubs and other places where kids and families socialized. This is how I met Brett Kavanaugh, the boy who sexually assaulted me.

During my freshman and sophomore school years, when I was 14 and 15 years old, my group of friends intersected with Brett and his friends for a short period of time. I had been friendly with a classmate of Brett's for a short time during my freshman and sophomore year, and it was through that connection that I attended a number of parties that Brett also attended. We did not know each other well, but I knew him and he knew me.

In the summer of 1982, like most summers, I spent most every day at the Columbia Country Club in Chevy Chase, Maryland, swimming and practicing diving.

One evening that summer, after a day of diving at the club, I attended a small gathering at a house in the Bethesda area. There were four boys I remember specifically being there: Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, a boy named P.J., and one other boy whose name I cannot recall. I also remember my friend Leland attending.

I do not remember all of the details of how that gathering came together, but like many that summer, it was almost surely a spur-of-the-moment gathering.

I truly wish I could be more helpful with more detailed answers to all of the questions that have and will be asked about how I got to the party and where it took place and so forth. I don't have all the answers, and I don't remember as much as I would like to.

But the details that - about that night that bring me here today are the ones I will never forget. They have been seared into my memory, and have haunted me episodically as an adult.

When I got to the small gathering, people were drinking beer in a small living room/family room-type area on the first floor of the house. I drank one beer. Brett and Mark were visibly drunk.

Early in the evening, I went up a very narrow set of stairs leading from the living room to a second floor to use the restroom. When I got to the top of the stairs, I was pushed from behind into a bedroom across from the bathroom. I couldn't see who pushed me. Brett and Mark came into the bedroom and locked the door behind them.

There was music playing in the bedroom. It was turned up louder by either Brett or Mark once we were in the room.

I was pushed onto the bed, and Brett got on top of me. He began running his hands over my body and grinding into me. I yelled, hoping that someone downstairs might hear me, and I tried to get away from him, but his weight was heavy.

Brett groped me and tried to take off my clothes. He had a hard time, because he was very inebriated, and because I was wearing a one-piece bathing suit underneath my clothing.

I believed he was going to rape me.

I tried to yell for help. When I did, Brett put his hand over my mouth to stop me from yelling. This is what terrified me the most, and has had the most lasting impact on my life. It was hard for me to breathe, and I thought that Brett was accidentally going to kill me.

FORD: Both Brett and Mark were drunkenly laughing during the attack. They seemed to be having a very good time.

Mark seemed ambivalent, at times urging Brett on and at times telling him to stop. A couple of times, I made eye contact with Mark and thought he might try to help me, but he did not.

During this assault, Mark came over and jumped on the bed twice while Brett was on top of me. And the last time that he did this, we toppled over and Brett was no longer on top of me. I was able to get up and run out of the room.

Directly across from the bedroom was a small bathroom. I ran inside the bathroom and locked the door. I waited until I heard Brett and Mark leave the bedroom, laughing and loudly walk down the narrow stairway, pinballing off the walls on the way down.

I waited, and when I did not hear them come back up the stairs, I left the bathroom, went down the same stairwell through the living room, and left the house.

I remember being on the street and feeling this enormous sense of relief that I had escaped that house and that Brett and Mark were not coming outside after me.

Brett's assault on me drastically altered my life. For a very long time, I was too afraid and ashamed to tell anyone these details. I did not want to tell my parents that I, at age 15, was in a house without any parents present, drinking beer with boys.

I convinced myself that because Brett did not rape me, I should just move on and just pretend that it didn't happen.

Over the years, I told very, very few friends that I had this traumatic experience. I told my husband before we were married that I had experienced a sexual assault. I had never told the details to anyone - the specific details - until May 2012, during a couples counseling session.

The reason this came up in counseling is that my husband and I had completed a very extensive, very long remodel of our home and I insisted on a second front door, an idea that he and others disagreed with and could not understand.

In explaining why I wanted a second front door, I began to describe the assault in detail. I recall saying that the boy who assaulted me could someday be on the U.S. Supreme Court, and spoke a bit about his background at an elitist all-boys school in Bethesda, Maryland. My husband recalls that I named my attacker as Brett Kavanaugh.

After that May 2012 therapy session, I did my best to ignore the memories of the assault, because recounting them caused me to relive the experience, and caused panic and anxiety.

Occasionally, I would discuss the assault in an individual therapy session, but talking about it caused more reliving of the trauma, so I tried not to think about it or discuss it. But over the years, I went through periods where I thought about the attack.

I had confided in some close friends that I had had an experience with sexual assault. Occasionally, I stated that my assailant was a prominent lawyer or judge, but I did not use his name.

FORD: I do not recall each person I spoke to about Brett's assault. And some friends have reminded me of these conversations since the publication of the Washington Post story on September 16th, 2018. But until July 2018, I had never named Mr. Kavanaugh as my attacker outside of therapy.

This changed in early July 2018. I saw press reports stating that Brett Kavanaugh was on the shortlist of a list of very well-qualified Supreme Court nominees. I thought it was my civic duty to relay the information I had about Mr. Kavanaugh's conduct so that those considering his nomination would know about this assault.

On July 6th, I had a sense of urgency to relay the information to the Senate and the president as soon as possible, before a nominee was selected. I did not know how, specifically, to do this.

I called my congressional representative and let her receptionist know that someone on the president's shortlist had attacked me. I also sent a message to the encrypted Washington Post confidential tip line. I did not use my name, but I provided the names of Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge. I stated that Mr. Kavanaugh had assaulted me in the 1980s in Maryland.

This was an extremely hard thing for me to do, but I felt that I couldn't not do it.

Over the next two days, I told a couple of close friends on the beach in Aptos, California, that Mr. Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted me. I was very conflicted as to whether to speak out.

On July 9th, I received a return phone call from the office of Congresswoman Anna Eshoo after Mr. Kavanaugh had become the nominee. I met with her staff on July 18th and with her on July 20th, describing the assault and discussing my fears about coming forward.

Later, we discussed the possibility of sending a letter to Ranking Member Feinstein, who is one of my state senators, describing what occurred. My understanding is that Representative Eshoo's office delivered a copy of my letter to Senator Feinstein's office on July 30th.

The letter included my name, but also a request that it be kept confidential. My hope was that providing the information confidentially would be sufficient to allow the Senate to consider Mr. Kavanaugh's serious misconduct without having to make myself, my family or anyone's family vulnerable to the personal attacks and invasions of privacy that we have faced since my name became public.

In a letter dated August 31st, Senator Feinstein wrote that she would not share the letter without my explicit consent, and I appreciated this commitment. Sexual assault victims should be able to decide for themselves when and whether their private experience is made public.

As the hearing date got closer, I struggled with a terrible choice: Do I share the facts with the Senate and put myself and my family in the public spotlight, or do I preserve our privacy and allow the Senate to make its decision without knowing the full truth of his past behaviors?

I agonized daily with this decision throughout August and September 2018. The sense of duty that originally motivated me to reach out confidentially to The Washington Post and to Anna Eshoo's office when there was still a list of extremely qualified candidates - and to Senator Feinstein - was always there, but my fears of the consequences of speaking out started to exponentially increase.

FORD: During August 2018, the press reported that Mr. Kavanaugh's confirmation was virtually certain. Persons painted him as a champion of women's rights and empowerment. And I believed that if I came forward, my single voice would be drowned out by a chorus of powerful supporters.

By the time of the confirmation hearings, I had resigned myself to remaining quiet and letting the committee and the Senate make their decision without knowing what Mr. Kavanaugh had done to me.

Once the press started reporting on the existence of the letter I had sent to Senator Feinstein, I faced mounting pressure. Reporters appeared at my home and at my workplace, demanding information about the letter in the presence of my graduate students. They called my bosses and co-workers, and left me many messages, making it clear that my name would inevitably be released to the media.

I decided to speak out publicly to a journalist who had originally responded to the tip I had sent to the Washington Post and who had gained my trust. It was important for me to describe the details of the assault in my own words.

Since September 16th, the date of the Washington Post's story, I have experienced an outpouring of support from people in every state of this country. Thousands and thousands of people who have had their lives dramatically altered by sexual violence have reached out to share their experience and have thanked me for coming forward. We have received tremendous support from our friends and our community.

At the same time, my greatest fears have been realized and the reality has been far worse than what I expected. My family and I have been the target of constant harassment and death threats, and I have been called the most vile and hateful names imaginable. These messages, while far fewer than the expressions of support, have been terrifying and have rocked me to my core.

People have posted my personal information and that of my parents online on the Internet. This has resulted in additional e-mails, calls and threats.

My family and I were forced to move out of our home. Since September 16th, my family and I have been visiting in various secure locales, at times separated and at times together, with the help of security guards.

This past Tuesday evening, my work e-mail was hacked and messages were sent out trying to recant my description of the sexual assault.

Apart from the assault itself, these past couple of weeks have been the hardest of my life. I've had to relive this trauma in front of the world. And I've seen my life picked apart by people on television, on Twitter, other social media, other media and in this body, who have never met me or spoken with me.

I have been accused of acting out of partisan political motives. Those who say that do not know me. I'm an independent person and I am no one's pawn.

My motivation in coming forward was to be helpful and to provide facts about how Mr. Kavanaugh's actions have damaged my life, so that you could take into a serious consideration as you make your decision about how to proceed.

FORD: It is not my responsibility to determine whether Mr. Kavanaugh deserves to sit on the Supreme Court. My responsibility is to tell you the truth.

I understand that a professional prosecutor has been hired to ask me questions, and I'm committed to doing my very best to answer them. I have never been questioned by a prosecutor, and I will do my best.

At the same time, because the committee members will be judging my credibility, I do hope to be able to engage directly with each of you.

And at this point, I will do my best to answer your questions, and would request some caffeine.

(UNKNOWN): A Coke or something?

FORD: That sounds good. That would be great. Thanks.

GRASSLEY: Thank you.

FORD: Thank you.

GRASSLEY: Thank you very much.

Before I use my five minutes of questioning, I thought that I'd - I'd try to remind my colleagues - and in this case, Ms. Mitchell as well - that the five minutes, the way I traditionally have done, if you ask a question before your time runs out, and even though you go over your time, as long as you aren't filibustering, I'll let you ask your question.

And I'm going to make sure that both Dr. Ford and - Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh - as chairman of the committee, I know that they're going to get a chance to answer the questions fully beyond that five minutes. But when that - when either Dr. Ford or Judge Kavanaugh gets done, then we immediately go to the next person. So I hope that - that that will be done in a - and Dr. - Dr. Ford, I'm told that you want a break right now, and if you do, that's fine.

FORD: I'm OK. I got the coffee. Thank you very much. I think I can proceed and sip on the coffee.

GRASSLEY: No - nobody can mix up my coffee right, so I...

(LAUGHTER)

So you're pretty fortunate.

So now, with that, Ms. Mitchell, you have my five minutes to ask questions.

MITCHELL: Good morning, Dr. Ford.

FORD: Hi.

MITCHELL: We haven't met. My name is Rachel Mitchell.

FORD: Nice to meet you.

MITCHELL: I just wanted to tell you the - the first thing that struck me from your statement this morning was that you are terrified, and I just wanted to let you know I'm very sorry. That's not right.

I know this is stressful, and so I would like to set forth some guidelines that maybe will alleviate that a little bit.

If I ask you a question that you don't understand, please ask me to clarify it or ask it in a different way.

When I ask questions, sometimes I'll refer back to other information you've provided. If I do that and I get it wrong, please correct me.

FORD: OK.

MITCHELL: I'm not going to ask you to guess. I know it was a long time ago. If you do estimate, please let me know that you're estimating, OK?

FORD: Fair.

MITCHELL: OK.

We've put before you - and I'm sure you have copies of them anyway - five pieces of information, and I wanted to go over them.

The first is a screenshot of a WhatsApp texting between you and somebody at the Washington Post. Do you have that in front of you?

FORD: Yes.

MITCHELL: The first two texts were sent by you on July 6th. Is that correct?

FORD: Correct.

MITCHELL: And then the last one sent by you was on July 10th?

FORD: Correct.

MITCHELL: OK. Are those three comments accurate?

FORD: I will read them.

(UNKNOWN): Take your time.

FORD: Yes.

(UNKNOWN): Take your time.

FORD: So, there's one correction.

MITCHELL: OK.

FORD: I've misused the word "bystander" as an adjective.

MITCHELL: OK.

FORD: "Bystander" means someone that is looking at an assault, and - and the person named P.J. was not technically a bystander. I was writing very quickly with a sense of urgency.

So I would not call him a bystander. He was downstairs and, you know, what I remember of him was he was a - a tall and very nice person. I didn't know him well. But that he was downstairs, not anywhere near the event.

MITCHELL: OK. Thank you...

FORD: I'd like to take that word out, if it's possible.

MITCHELL: OK. Thank you for clarifying that.

The second is the letter that you wrote to Senator Feinstein, dated the - July 30th of this year.

FORD: Yes.

MITCHELL: Did you write the letter yourself?

FORD: I did.

MITCHELL: And I - since it's dated July 30th, did you write it on that date?

FORD: I believe so. I - it sounds right. I was in Rehoboth, Delaware, at the time. I could look into my calendar and try to figure that out. It seemed...

MITCHELL: Was it written on or about that date?

FORD: Yes, yes. I traveled, I think, the 26th of July to Rehoboth, Delaware. So that makes sense, because I wrote it from there.

MITCHELL: Is the letter accurate?

FORD: I'll take a minute to read it.

MITCHELL: OK.

FORD: I - I can read fast.

(UNKNOWN): Take your time.

FORD: OK.

OK, so I have three areas that I'd like to address.

MITCHELL: OK.

FORD: In the second paragraph, where it says this - "the assault occurred in a suburban Maryland area home"...

MITCHELL: Yes?

FORD: ... "at a gathering that included me and four others," I can't guarantee that there weren't a few other people there, but they are not in my purview of my memory.

MITCHELL: Would it be fair to say there were at least four others?

FORD: Yes.

MITCHELL: OK.

What's the second correction?

FORD: Oh, OK. The next sentence begins with "Kavanaugh physically pushed me into the bedroom," I would say I can't promise that Mark Judge didn't assist with that. I don't know. I was pushed from behind, so I don't want to put that solely on him.

MITCHELL: OK.

FORD: OK.

GRASSLEY: Ms. Mitchell, I don't know whether this is fair for me to interrupt, but I want to keep people within five minutes. Is that a - is that a major problem for you in the middle of a question?

Because I don't - we've got to - I've got to treat everybody the same.

MITCHELL: I understand that.

GRASSLEY: Can I go to Senator Feinstein, or you...

MITCHELL: Yes, sir. I - I'm sorry, I didn't see the light was red. Please do.

GRASSLEY: OK.

MITCHELL: Please do.

GRASSLEY: Senator Feinstein?

FEINSTEIN: FORD: I didn't get to...

(CROSSTALK)

(UNKNOWN): So we're going to come back to that.

FORD: Oh, OK. I...

(UNKNOWN): ... when she comes back (ph)...

FORD: I see.

(UNKNOWN): ... just making...

(CROSSTALK)

FORD: I see. OK.

FEINSTEIN: Fast (ph).

FORD: OK.

(UNKNOWN): (OFF-MIKE)

FORD: OK.

GRASSLEY: For the benefit of Dr. Ford, I think she'll continue that after the five minutes here.

FORD: Thank you. OK.

FEINSTEIN: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to begin by putting some letters in the record.

GRASSLEY: Without objection, so ordered. But if you want to tell me...

FEINSTEIN: 140 letters from friends and neighbors of the witness and a thousand female physicians across the country. That's what the letters are.

I want to thank you very much for your testimony. I know how very, very hard it is.

Why - why have you held it to yourself all these years? As you look back, can you indicate what the reasons are?

FORD: Well, I haven't held it all these years. I did disclose it in the - in the confines of therapy, where I felt like it was an appropriate place to cope with the sequelae of the event.

FEINSTEIN: Well, can you tell us what impact the events had on you?

FORD: Well, I think that the sequelae of sexual assault varies by person, so for me personally, anxiety, phobia and PTSD-like symptoms are the types of things that I've been coping with. So, more specifically, claustrophobia, panic and that type of thing.

FEINSTEIN: Is that the reason for the second door - front door...

FORD: Correct.

FEINSTEIN: ... is claustrophobia?

FORD: Correct. It doesn't - our house does not look aesthetically pleasing from the curb.

FEINSTEIN: I see. And do you have that second front door?

FORD: Yes.

FEINSTEIN: It's...

FORD: It - it now is a place to host Google interns. Because we live near Google, so we get to have - other students can live there.

FEINSTEIN: Can you tell us, is there any other way this has affected your life?

FORD: The primary impact was in the initial four years after the event.

I struggled academically. I struggled very much in Chapel Hill and in college. When I was 17 and went off to college, I had a very hard time, more so than others, forming new friendships and especially friendships with boys, and I had academic problems.

FEINSTEIN: What were the - when - when we spoke and it became very clear how deeply you felt about this and the need that you wanted to remain confidential, can you talk a little bit about that?

FORD: Yes.

So, I was watching carefully throughout the summer - well, my original intent, I just want to remind was to communicate with everyone when there was still a list of candidates who all seemed to be, just from my perspective, from what I could read, equally qualified. And I was in a hurry to try to get the information forward but didn't quite know how to do that.

However, once he was selected and it seemed like he was popular and it was a sure vote, I was calculating daily the risk/benefit for me of coming forward, and wondering whether I would just be jumping in front of a train that was headed to where it was headed anyway and that I would just be personally annihilated.

FEINSTEIN: How did you decide to come forward?

FORD: Ultimately because reporters were sitting outside my home and trying to talk to my dog through the window to calm the dog down, and a reporter appeared in my graduate classroom and I mistook her for a student, and she came up to ask me a question, and I thought she was a student and it turned out that she was a reporter.

So at that point, I felt like enough was enough. People were calling my colleagues at Stanford and leaving messages on their voicemails and on their e-mail, saying that they knew my name. Clearly, people knew my address because they were out in front of my house.

And it just - the mounting pressure, it seemed like it was time to just...

FEINSTEIN: I want...

FORD: ... say what I needed to say.

FEINSTEIN: I'm sorry.

I want to ask you one question about the attack itself.

You were very clear about the attack. Being pushed into the room, you say you don't know quite by whom, but that it was Brett Kavanaugh that covered your mouth to prevent you from screaming, and then you escaped. How are you so sure that it was he?

FORD: The same way that I'm sure that I'm talking to you right now. It's - just basic memory functions. And also just the level of norepinephrine and epinephrine in the brain that, sort of, as you know, encodes - that neurotransmitter encodes memories into the hippocampus. And so, the trauma-related experience, then, is kind of locked there, whereas other details kind of drift.

FEINSTEIN: So what you are telling us is this could not be a case of mistaken identity?

FORD: Absolutely not.

FEINSTEIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

GRASSLEY: Ms. Mitchell, for Senator - for Senator Hatch.

MITCHELL: 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.

FORD: It's - it wasn't a correction, but I wanted to comment on it, since we were looking at this letter, that 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 timeline as to when the attack occurred.

MITCHELL: OK.

And that - that is - so, that is not a correction in your statement?

FORD: It's just - no.

MITCHELL: OK.

You also wrote out a handwritten statement for the polygrapher when you took your polygraph test, is that correct?

FORD: Yes.

MITCHELL: OK.

And I - I see corrections on that where you crossed out, so I will go on to The Washington Post article that was...

FORD: OK.

MITCHELL: ... originally published on September 16th of this year.

FORD: And should I just not look at this for accuracy, or we're just going to leave that be?

MITCHELL: We may...

FORD: OK.

MITCHELL: ... come back to it...

FORD: OK.

MITCHELL: ... if you need to refer to it.

FORD: OK.

MITCHELL: On The Washington Post article, did you submit to an interview by a reporter with The Washington Post for that article to be written?

FORD: Correct.

MITCHELL: OK.

And then finally, was the statement that you provided this morning - I assume that, to the best of your recollection, that that was accurate?

FORD: That this whole article is accurate?

MITCHELL: No, no. The statement that you made this morning.

FORD: Yes.

MITCHELL: OK.

I want to talk to you about the day that this happened leading up to the gathering.

FORD: OK.

MITCHELL: In your statement this morning, have you told us everything that you remember about the day leading up to that?

FORD: Yes.

MITCHELL: Let me ask just a few questions to make sure that you've thought of everything, OK?

You indicated that you were at the country club swimming that day.

FORD: That's my best estimate of how this could have happened.

MITCHELL: OK.

And when you say "best estimate," is that based on the fact that you said you went there pretty much every day?

FORD: (OFF-MIKE)

MITCHELL: Is that a yes?

FORD: Yes.

MITCHELL: OK.

Do you recall prior to getting there - so I'm - I'm only talking about up to the gathering - had you had anything to drink?

FORD: Not at all.

MITCHELL: Were you on any sort of medication?

FORD: None.

MITCHELL: Do you recall knowing before you went who was going to be at that gathering?

FORD: I recall that - expecting that Mark Judge and Leland would be at that gathering.

MITCHELL: OK.

Do you recall an expectation that Brett Kavanaugh would be there?

FORD: I don't recall whether or not I expected that.

MITCHELL: OK.

Now let's talk about the gathering up from the time you arrived until right when you went up the stairs, just that period of time, OK?

What was the atmosphere like at the gathering?

FORD: Mr. Kavanaugh and Mr. Judge were extremely inebriated, they had clearly been drinking prior. And the other people at the party were not. The living room was...

MITCHELL: Can I ask you just to follow up on that?

When you said it was clear that they had been drinking prior, do you mean prior to the time you had gotten there or prior to the time they had arrived?

FORD: Prior to the time that they arrived. I don't recall who arrived first, though, whether it was me or them.

MITCHELL: OK, please continue.

FORD: OK.

So I recall that the - I could - I can sketch a floor plan. I recall that it was a sparsely furnished, fairly modest living room.

And it was not really a party like the news has made it sound. It was not. It was just a gathering that I assumed was going to lead to a party later on that those boys would attend, because they tended to have parties later at night than I was allowed to stay out.

So it was kind of a pre-gathering.

MITCHELL: Was it loud?

FORD: No, not in the living room.

MITCHELL: Besides the music that you've described that was playing in the bedroom, was there any other music or television or anything like that that was adding?

FORD: No.

MITCHELL: OK. So there wasn't a stereo playing downstairs?

FORD: No.

MITCHELL: OK.

GRASSLEY: Senator Leahy?

LEAHY: Dr. Ford, thank you for being here.

Mr. Chairman, you know, the - the way to make this inquiry truly credible is to do what we've always done when new information about a nominee comes to light. To use your words this morning, you want to reach the truth. The easy way to do that: ask the FBI to investigate. This is what we've always done. Let them investigate, report back to us. The same applies to the serious allegations made by Deborah Ramirez and Julie Swetnick.

Let's have a nonpartisan, professional investigation and then take the time to have these witnesses testify.

Chairman, you and I were both here 27 years ago. At that time, the Senate failed Anita Hill. I said I believed her.

But I'm concerned that we're doing a lot less for these three women today. That's my personal view.

LEAHY: Dr. Ford, no matter what happens with this hearing today, no matter what happens to this nomination, I know, and I hear from so many in my own state of Vermont, there are millions of victims and survivors out there who have been inspired by your courage. I am.

Bravery is contagious. Indeed, that's the driving force behind the MeToo movement. And you sharing your story is going to have a lasting, positive impact on so many survivors in our country. We owe you a debt of gratitude for that, Doctor.

Now, some senators have suggested you were simply mixed up about who assaulted you. An ally of Judge Kavanaugh in the White House even promoted a wild theory about a Kavanaugh look-alike. You immediately rejected that theory, as did the innocent man who'd been called that look-alike. In fact, he sent a letter to this committee forcefully rejecting this absurd theory.

I ask consent to enter that in the record.

GRASSLEY: Without objection, so ordered.

LEAHY: Now, how did you know Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge? And is it possible that you had mixed them up with somebody else?

FORD: No, it is not.

And the person that was blamed for the incident is actually the person who introduced me to them originally. So he was a member of Columbia Country Club. And I don't want to talk about him because I think it's unfair, but he is the person that - that introduced me to them.

LEAHY: But you - you would not mix up somebody else with Brett Kavanaugh, is that correct?

FORD: Correct.

LEAHY: Or Mark Judge.

FORD: Correct.

LEAHY: Well, then, let's go back to the incident.

What is the strongest memory you have, the strongest memory of the incident, something that you cannot forget? Take whatever time you need.

FORD: Indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter, the laugh - the uproarious laughter between the two, and their having fun at my expense.

LEAHY: You've never forgotten that laughter. You've never forgotten them laughing at you.

FORD: They were laughing with each other.

LEAHY: And you were the object of the laughter?

FORD: I was, you know, underneath one of them while the two laughed, two friend - two friends having a really good time with one another.

LEAHY: Let me enter into the record a statement by the National Task Force to End Domestic Violence...

GRASSLEY: Without objection, so ordered.

LEAHY: ... and a letter from 24 members of the House of Representatives, urging the committee to use the NTF's trauma-informed approach in questioning Dr. Ford...

GRASSLEY: Without objection, so ordered.

LEAHY: ... and a letter from another 116 members of the House asking to delay until all this has been heard.

GRASSLEY: Without objection, so ordered.

LEAHY: And Dr. Ford has at times been criticized for what she doesn't remember from 36 years ago. But we have numerous experts, including a study by the U.S. Army Military Police School of Behavioral Sciences Education, that lapses of memory are wholly consistent with severe trauma and stressful assault. And I'd ask consent that be entered.

GRASSLEY: Without objection, so ordered.

LEAHY: And, Dr. Ford, I'd just conclude with this: You do remember what happened, do you not?

FORD: Very much so.

LEAHY: Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

GRASSLEY: Now, Ms. Mitchell for Senator Graham.

And then it's my understanding that - that that's where you'd like to take a break.

FORD: Does that work for you? Does that work for you, as well?

GRASSLEY: Well, we - we're here to accommodate you...

FORD: Oh, thank you.

GRASSLEY: ... not you accommodate us.

FORD: I - I - I'm used to being collegial, so.

GRASSLEY: OK, go ahead.

(LAUGHTER)

Ms. Mitchell, for Senator Graham.

MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You told Senator Feinstein in your letter that you and four others were present. You've corrected that today to say it was at least 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 were four boys and two girls.

When you say "two girls," was that you and another or was that two other girls?

FORD: That was me and one other girl.

MITCHELL: And that other girl's name?

FORD: Leland.

MITCHELL: Leland Keyser now?

FORD: Correct.

MITCHELL: OK.

So then would it be fair to say at least P.J., Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, Leland Ingham - at the time - and yourself were present, and possibly others?

FORD: And one - one other boy. So there were four - there were four boys. I just don't know the name of the other boy, so.

MITCHELL: Have you been contacted by anybody saying, "Hey, I was at that party, too"?

FORD: No, I haven't talked with anyone from that party.

MITCHELL: OK.

Now, you've - you've been detailed about what happened once you got up the stairs. And so, I don't need to go through that again.

FORD: (OFF-MIKE)

MITCHELL: I'm sorry, go ahead.

FORD: You know, oh wait, I'm sorry.

I just realized that I said something that was inaccurate. I said I hadn't spoken with anyone from the party since that. I have spoken with Leland.

MITCHELL: OK. Thank you for correcting that. I appreciate that.

FORD: Yes, thank you.

MITCHELL: You've gone into detail about what happened once you went up the stairs. So I don't feel like it's necessary to go over those things again.

FORD: OK.

MITCHELL: OK?

FORD: Thank you.

MITCHELL: Have you told us everything that you do remember about it?

FORD: I believe so. But if there are other questions I will - I can attempt to answer them.

MITCHELL: OK.

You said that the music was solely coming from that room, is that correct?

FORD: Correct.

MITCHELL: OK.

And it was turned up once the three of you were inside that room, is that correct?

FORD: Yes.

MITCHELL: OK.

At some point, do you recall it being turned down?

FORD: I don't remember if it was turned down once I was leaving the house. I don't remember.

MITCHELL: OK.

FORD: Likely, since I could hear them walking down the stairs very clearly from the bathroom.

MITCHELL: OK.

And the bathroom was...

FORD: I'm sorry (ph).

MITCHELL: ... door was closed when you heard this, is that correct?

FORD: I could hear them very clearly hitting the walls...

MITCHELL: OK.

FORD: ... going down the stairwell.

MITCHELL: In fact, in your letter, you said that they went down the stairs and they were talking with other people...

FORD: Yes.

MITCHELL: ... in the house.

FORD: Correct.

MITCHELL: Were you able to hear that conversation?

FORD: I was not able to hear that conversation. But I was aware that they were downstairs and that I would have to walk past them to get out of the house.

MITCHELL: OK.

Now, let me make sure we're on the same page. Were you not able to hear the conversation, or not able to understand the conversation?

FORD: I couldn't hear the conversation. I was upstairs.

MITCHELL: OK.

How do you know there was a conversation?

FORD: I'm just assuming, since it was a social gathering, people were talking. I don't know.

MITCHELL: OK.

In your letter, you...

FORD: I could hear them talking as they went down the stairwell, they were laughing, and...

MITCHELL: OK.

In your letter you wrote, "Both loudly stumbled down the stairwell, at which point other persons at the house were talking with them." Does that ring a bell?

FORD: Yes. I had to walk past everyone to leave the house, so...

MITCHELL: OK.

FORD: I'm not...

MITCHELL: In your letter...

FORD: Maybe I'm not understanding. I'm sorry.

MITCHELL: OK.

Your next sentence - let me try to clarify this. After you said "other persons at the house were talking with them," the letter goes on with the very next sentence, "I exited the bathroom, ran outside of the house and went home."

FORD: Correct.

MITCHELL: OK.

You said that you do not remember how you got home, is that correct?

FORD: I do not remember...

MITCHELL: OK.

FORD: ... other than I did not drive home.

MITCHELL: OK.

I'm going to show you, if somebody could provide to you, a map of the various peoples' houses at the time. And if you could verify that this is where you were living at the time.

FORD: Where I was living at the time?

MITCHELL: Yes.

FORD: OK. OK.

HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, do we have a copy of these documents?

GRASSLEY: You do not have a copy (OFF-MIKE) you want one, we can get you one.

HARRIS: Yes, before the questions begin, so we can follow the testimony.

(CORRECTED COPY - CORRECTS "BY" to "MY")

GRASSLEY: OK. My staff says that we should not provide the copy.

(UNKNOWN): No, we will provide the copy.

GRASSLEY: Oh.

(LAUGHTER)

(UNKNOWN): Will provide the copy.

GRASSLEY: Well, speak plainly with me, please.

HARRIS: Sure. I'd like to see what she's looking at.

(LAUGHTER)

GRASSLEY: Yeah.

You have another 30 seconds now because I was rudely interrupted.

MITCHELL: OK.

Mr. Chairman, Senator Harris, we do have a - a blown-up copy of this for the members to view, if that's helpful.

FORD: OK, I'm going to put check marks next to homes that I can confirm are the correct locations, and then an X or a question mark when I don't know where these people live.

MITCHELL: I'm only asking you to confirm if that map accurately shows where you were living at the time.

FORD: Where I lived at the time.

So I can't see the street name, but I'm happy to refer to the address or the neighborhood.

MITCHELL: OK, could you tell us that?

FORD: Yes. It's River Falls.

MITCHELL: OK.

FORD: It's near the - like - what is the place called? The Naval Research Center on Clara Barton Parkway.

MITCHELL: OK, was that a house or an apartment?

FORD: It was my parents' home.

MITCHELL: OK.

FORD: Yes.

MITCHELL: All right. OK.

GRASSLEY: Senator Durbin?

DURBIN: Mr. Chairman, I ask consent to enter into the record letters of support for Dr. Ford from her classmates at Holton-Arms school, 1,200 alumni of the school, 195 of your colleagues, students and mentors, 1,400 women who - and men who attended D.C. schools, and 50 members of the Yale Law School faculty who are calling for a full FBI investigation. I ask consent to enter these into the record.

GRASSLEY: Without objection, so ordered.

DURBIN: Dr. Ford, as difficult as this experience must be, I want you to know your courage in coming forward has given countless Americans the strength to face their own life-shattering past and to begin to heal their wounds. By example, you have brought many families into an honest and sometimes painful dialogue that should have occurred a long time ago.

I'm sorry for what this has done to you and your family. No one, no one should face harassment, death threats and disparaging comments by cheap-shot politicians simply for telling the truth.

But you and your family should know that for every scurrilous charge and every pathetic tweet, there have been thousands of Americans, women and men, who believe you, support you and thank you for your courage.

Watching your experience, it's no wonder that many sexual assault survivors hide their past and spend their lives suffering in pained silence.

You had absolutely nothing to gain by bringing these facts to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The fact that you are testifying here today, terrified though you may be, the fact that you have called for an FBI investigation of this incident, the fact that you are prepared to name both Judge Kavanaugh and eyewitness Mark Judge stands in sharp contrast to the obstruction we've seen on the other side.

DURBIN: The FBI should have investigated your charges as they did in the Anita Hill hearing, but they did not. Mark Judge should be subpoenaed from his Bethany Beach hideaway and required to testify under oath, but he has not.

Judge Kavanaugh, if he truly believes there is no evidence, no witnesses that can prove your case, should be joining us in demanding a thorough FBI investigation, but he is not.

Today, you come before this committee and before this nation alone. I know you're joined by counsel and family.

The prosecutor on the Republican side will continue to ask questions to test your memory and veracity. After spending decades trying to forget that awful night, it's no wonder your recollection is less than perfect.

A polished liar can create a seamless story, but a trauma survivor cannot be expected to remember every painful detail. That's what Senator Leahy has mentioned earlier.

One question is critical. In Judge Kavanaugh's opening testimony, which we will hear after you leave, this is what he says: "I never had any sexual or physical encounter of any kind with Dr. Ford. I am not questioning that Dr. Ford may have been sexually assaulted by some person in some place at some time."

Last night, the Republican staff of this committee released to the media a timeline 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?

FORD: One hundred percent.

DURBIN: One hundred percent.

In the letter which you sent to Dr. - or, Senator Feinstein you wrote, "I have not knowingly seen Kavanaugh since the assault. I did see Mark Judge once at the Potomac Village Safeway where he was extremely uncomfortable in seeing me."

Would you please describe that encounter at the Safeway with Mark Judge and what led you to believe he was uncomfortable?

FORD: Yes.

I was going to the Potomac Village Safeway - this is the one on the corner of Falls and River Road - and I was with my mother. And I was a teenager, so I wanted her to go in one door and me go in the other.

So I chose the wrong door, because the door I chose was the one where Mark Judge was - looked like he was working there and arranging the shopping carts. And I said "Hello" to him. And his face was white and very uncomfortable saying "Hello" back.

And we had previously been friendly at the times that we saw each other over the previous two years. Albeit not very many times, we had always been friendly with one another.

I wouldn't characterize him as not friendly. He was just nervous and not really wanting to speak with me.

DURBIN: How long...

FORD: And he - he looked a little bit ill.

DURBIN: How long did this occur after the incident?

FORD: I would estimate six to eight weeks.

DURBIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

GRASSLEY: Before we take a break, I can't let what Durbin - Senator Durbin said - by the way, he's my friend; we work on a lot of legislation together.

But you talked about the obstruction from the other side.

I cannot let it go by what you've heard me say so many times, that between July 30th and September 13th, there were 45 days this committee could have been investigating this situation and her privacy would have been producted - protected. So something happened here in between, on your side, that the whole country - well, not the whole country should have known about it - no, not know about it. We should have investigated it.

We'll take a break now for 15 minutes.

(RECESS)

GRASSLEY: Dr. Ford, let me ask you a process question here. We were going to schedule a break for 12:05. This last break came just a little bit later; I didn't call it at the right time.

We're going to have a vote at 12:40, so would it be possible for you to go from now until 12:40 without a break?

FORD: Yes.

GRASSLEY: Yes, OK.

Now it is Senator Cornyn's time, so proceed Ms. Mitchell.

MITCHELL: Thank you, Senator.

I have a blow-up here to my right of the map that was shown to you. The address that's indicated on here as belonging to your family is what all the property tax records showed as being your address.

FORD: OK.

MITCHELL: Just to put it in perspective, I'd like to show you a further-out - a zoomed-out picture, so that we can put it in perspective. So, we can show the greater Washington area. Of course, you can see the Beltway on that - the Beltway area.

FORD: OK.

MITCHELL: Then number three, if we could look at that, we drew a one-mile radius around the country club and then we calculated from the farthest point...

HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, again, we don't have these documents.

(UNKNOWN): (OFF-MIKE)

HARRIS: No, we're not. That's why she showed three different documents, because they depict three different things. So we'd like to see all three documents, please, so we can follow along.

GRASSLEY: She - proceed please.

MITCHELL: OK.

Looking at number - the third thing here, we calculated the distance from the closest point to your house from a mile radius of the country club and then the farthest point. You can see it's 6.2 and, of course, 8.2 miles.

FORD: Yes.

MITCHELL: And you've described this as being near the country club, wherever this house was, is that right?

FORD: I would describe it as it's somewhere between my house and the country club in that vicinity that's shown in your picture. And the country club is about 20 - a 20-minute drive from my parents' home.

MITCHELL: A 20-minute drive. And, of course, I've marked as the crow flies.

FORD: Yes.

MITCHELL: Would it be fair to say that somebody drove you somewhere, either to the party or home from the party?

FORD: Correct.

MITCHELL: OK.

Has anyone come forward to say to you, "Hey, remember, I was the one that drove you home?"

FORD: No.

MITCHELL: OK.

In your July 6th text to The Washington Post that you looked at earlier, you said that this happened in the mid '80s. In your letter to Senator Feinstein you said it occurred in the early '80s.

FORD: Yes.

MITCHELL: In your polygraph statement you said it was high school summer in '80s, and you actually had written in and this is one of the corrections I referred to early and then you crossed that out.

Later in your interview with The Washington Post, you were more specific. You believed it occurred in the summer of 1982 and you said at the end of your sophomore year.

FORD: Yes.

MITCHELL: You said the same thing I believe in your prepared statement.

How were you able to narrow down the timeframe?

FORD: I can't give the exact date. And I would like to be more helpful about the date, and if I knew when Mark Judge worked at the Potomac Safeway, then I would be able to be more helpful in that way.

So I'm just using memories of when I got my driver's license. I was 15 at the time. And I - I did not drive home from that party or to that party, and once I did have my driver's license, I liked to drive myself.

MITCHELL: I'd assume the legal driving age was 16.

FORD: Yes.

MITCHELL: OK.

Now, you've talked about attending therapy. In your text to The Washington Post dated 7/6 - so that's the very first statement we have from you - you put in there, quote, "have therapy records talking about it."

FORD: Yes.

MITCHELL: I want to make sure I understand that. Did you already have your therapy records at that time?

FORD: I had looked at them online to see if they existed, yes.

MITCHELL: OK.

So this was something that was available to you via a computer, like a - a patient portal?

FORD: Actually, no, it was in the office of a provider.

MITCHELL: OK.

FORD: She helped me go through the record to locate whether I had had record of this conversation that I had remembered.

MITCHELL: Did you show a full or partial set of those marriage therapy records to The Washington Post?

FORD: I don't remember. I remember summarizing for her what they said. So I'm not - I'm not quite sure if I actually gave her the record.

MITCHELL: OK. So it's possible that the reporter did not see these notes.

FORD: I don't know if she's - I can't recall whether she saw them directly or if I just told her what they said.

MITCHELL: Have you shown them to anyone else besides your counsel?

FORD: Just the counsel.

MITCHELL: OK. Would it be fair to say that Brett Kavanaugh's name is not listed in those notes?

FORD: His name is not listed in those notes.

MITCHELL: Would it also be fair to say that the therapist notes that we've been talking about say that there were four boys in the room?

FORD: It describes the sexual assault and it says erroneously by four boys. So the therapist got the content of it wrong.

MITCHELL: And you corrected that to The Washington Post reporter, correct?

FORD: Correct.

GRASSLEY: Senator Whitehouse.

WHITEHOUSE: Thank you, chairman.

Thank you, Dr. Blasey Ford. A lot of people are proud of you today.

From a prosecutor's view, one of the hardest things that we have to do is to speak to somebody who's come forward with an allegation of sexual assault and let them know that we can't provide the evidence to go forward to trial. It's a hard day for the prosecutor to do that.

And so, both because making a sincere and thorough investigative effort is such an important consolation to the victim in that circumstance and because it's what you're obliged to do professionally, sincere and thorough investigation is critical to these claims in a prosecutor's world. It may be the most basic thing that we owe a victim or a witness coming forward is to make sure that we give them a full, thorough and sincere investigation.

You have met all of the standards of what I might call preliminary credibility with your initial statement. You have vivid, specific and detailed recollections, something prosecutors look for. Your recollections are consistent with known facts.

You made prior consistent statements, something else prosecutors and lawyers look for. You are willing to, and - and did, take a lie detector test. And you are willing to testify here. Here you are, subject to professional cross-examination by a prosecutor.

So you've met any condition any prosecutor could expect to go forward; and, yet, there has been no sincere or thorough investigation of your claims. You specifically asked for an FBI investigation, did you not?

(UNKNOWN): You can say something (ph).

FORD: Yes.

WHITEHOUSE: And are you aware that when the FBI begins investigating, they might find corroborative evidence and they might find exculpatory evidence?

FORD: I don't know what exculpatory evidence...

WHITEHOUSE: Is it(ph)...

FORD: ... is.

WHITEHOUSE: ... not helpful to your recollection and - and - version of events. Helpful to the accused.

FORD: Understood. Yes.

WHITEHOUSE: So it could go either way.

FORD: Yes.

WHITEHOUSE: And you were (ph) still - not just willing, but insistent that the FBI should investigate your recollection and your claim?

FORD: Yes. I feel like it would - I could be more helpful in that, if that was the case, in providing some of the details that maybe people are wanting to know about.

WHITEHOUSE: And - and as we know, they didn't. And I submit that never - never in the history of background investigations has an investigation not been pursued when new, credible, derogatory information was brought forward about the nominee or the candidate.

I don't think this has ever happened in the history of FBI background investigations. Maybe somebody can prove me wrong, but it is wildly unusual and out of character.

And in my view, it is a grave disservice to you - and I want to take this moment to apologize to you for that, and to report to anybody who might be listening, that when somebody's willing to come forward, even under those circumstances, even - haven't been - not given the modicum of courtesy and support of a proper investigation, you've shown yourself particularly proud in doing that.

And the responsibility for the decision to have this be, I think, the only background investigation in history to be stopped as derogatory information came forward, belongs with 13 men: the president, Director Wray of the FBI, and the 11 members of the majority of this committee.

As to the committee's investigation, the fact that Mr. Kavanaugh's alleged accomplice has not been subpoenaed, has not been examined and cross-examined under oath, has not been interviewed by the FBI, tells you all you need to know about how credible this performance is.

The very bare minimum that a person who comes forward is owed, is sincere and thorough investigation and you've been denied that. And I will make a personal pledge to you, here, that however long it takes, in whatever forum I can do it, whenever it's possible, I will do whatever's in my power to make sure that your claims get a full and proper investigation and not just this.

Thank you for being here.

FORD: Thank you.

GRASSLEY: Since this issue's come up so many times, I'd like to comment.

The New Yorker published an anonymous account of allegations, September the 14th. Two days later, Dr. Ford identified herself as the victim in a Post article, detailing her allegations.

I immediately directed my staff to investigate. September the 17th, Dr. Ford's counsel went on several television shows, requesting that her client have an opportunity to tell her story.

The same day, I scheduled a hearing for Monday, September the 24th giving Dr. Ford a week to prepare her testimony and come to Washington, D.C.

On September the 17th, the committee investigative staff reached out to Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh to schedule follow-up interviews with Republican and Democrat investigators.

Judge Kavanaugh accepted the opportunity to speak to the investigators under criminal penalty. Dr. Ford declined.

In his interview on September the 17th, Judge Kavanaugh denied the allegations and requested a hearing as soon as possible. Democratic staff refused to participate in that interview.

The next day, September the 18th, committee investigative staff contacted Mark Judge requesting an interview. Committee staff also learned the identity of two other alleged partygoers and requested interviews. Mark Judge submitted a statement under penalty of felony denying knowledge of the party described by Dr. Ford and states that he never saw Brett at the - in the manner described by Dr. Ford.

And I can go on and on about that, but we got to realize that what we have done in this case - all the time, you go through a background investigation by the FBI, then it comes to us and there's always some holes in it that we have to follow-up on. And besides...

KLOBUCHAR: Mr. Chairman...

GRASSLEY: ... we're responding to Dr. Ford's request to tell her story, that's why we're here.

KLOBUCHAR: ... Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman...

GRASSLEY: ... Ms. Mitchell, go for Senator...

KLOBUCHAR: ... Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that - to support what Senator Whitehouse said, in the Anita Hill case...

DURBIN?: Can we hear from Dr. - Dr. Ford?

KLOBUCHAR: ... George Bush ordered that the investigation be opened again.

GRASSLEY: Ms. Mitchell, will you proceed for - for Senator Lee?

MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Ford, The Washington Post reported in their September 16th article that you did show them therapist notes. Is that incorrect?

FORD: I don't remember physically showing her a note.

MITCHELL: OK.

FORD: Perhaps my counsel did. I don't - I don't remember physically showing her my copy of the note.

MITCHELL: OK.

FORD: But I - I just don't remember. I'm sorry. I have retrieved a physical copy of those medical records.

MITCHELL: OK, thank you. You also attended individual therapy. Did you show any of those notes to the reporter from The Washington Post?

FORD: 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 - I don't know for sure, but I certainly spoke with her about the 2013 record with the individual therapist.

MITCHELL: And Brett Kavanaugh's name is not in those notes, is that correct?

FORD: Correct.

MITCHELL: OK. In reading The Washington Post article, it mentions that this incident that we're here about contributed to anxiety and PTSD problems with which you have struggled. The word contributed, does that mean that there are other things that have happened that have also contributed to anxiety and PTSD?

FORD: I think that's a great question. I think the etiology if anxiety and PTSD is multifactorial. So that was certainly a critical risk - risk that - we would call a risk factor in science, so that would be a predictor of the symptoms that I now have.

It doesn't mean that other things that have happened in my life would have - would make it worse or better. There are other risk factors as well.

MITCHELL: So have there been other things, then, that have contributed to the anxiety and PTSD that you suffered?

FORD: Well, I think there's, sort of, biological predispositions that everyone in here has for particular disorders. So I can't rule out that I would have some biological predisposition to be, you know...

MITCHELL: What about...

FORD: ... an anxious type person.

MITCHELL: ... what about environmental?

FORD: Environmentally, not that I can think of.

MITCHELL: OK.

FORD: Certainly, no - nothing as striking as that event.

MITCHELL: OK. In your interview with The Washington Post, you said that you told your husband early in your marriage that you had been a victim of, and I quote, "physical abuse." In your statement, you said that before you were married, you told him that you had experienced, quote, "a sexual assault." Do these two things refer to the same incident?

FORD: Yes.

MITCHELL: And at either point on these two times, did you use any names?

FORD: No.

MITCHELL: OK.

May I ask, Dr. Ford, how did you get to Washington?

FORD: In an airplane.

MITCHELL: OK. It's - I ask that, because it's been reported by the press that you would not submit to an interview with the committee because of your fear of flying. Is - is that true?

FORD: Well, I was willing - I was hoping that they would come to me, but then I realized that was an unrealistic request.

MITCHELL: It would've been a quicker trip for me.

FORD: Yes. So that was certainly what I was hoping, was to avoid having to get on an airplane, but I eventually was able to get up the gumption with the help of some friends, and get on the plane.

MITCHELL: OK (ph). When you were here in the mid - mid-Atlantic area back in August, end of July, August, how did you get here?

FORD: Also by airplane. I come here once a year during the summer to visit my family.

MITCHELL: OK.

FORD: I'm sorry, not here. I go to Delaware.

MITCHELL: OK. In fact, you fly fairly frequently for your hobbies and your - you've had to fly for your work. Is that true?

FORD: Correct, unfortunately.

MITCHELL: You - you were a consulting biostatistician in Sydney, Australia. Is that right?

FORD: I've never been to Australia, but the company that I worked for is based in Australia, and they have an office in San Francisco, California.

MITCHELL: OK.

FORD: I - I don't think I'll make it to Australia.

MITCHELL: It is long.

I also saw on your C.V. that you list the following interests of surf travel, and you, in parentheses" Hawaii, Costa Rica, South Pacific islands and French Polynesia." Have you been all to those places?

FORD: Correct.

MITCHELL: By airplane?

FORD: Yes.

MITCHELL: And your interests also include oceanography, Hawaiian and Tahitian culture. Did you travel by air as a part of those interests?

FORD: Correct.

MITCHELL: All right. Thank you very much.

FORD: Easier for me to travel going that direction when it's a vacation.

GRASSLEY: (OFF MIKE) Senator Klobuchar.

KLOBUCHAR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being here, Dr. Ford.

You know, in my old job as a prosecutor, we investigated reports like this, so it gave me a window on the types of cases that hurt women and hurt all of us. And I would always tell the women that came before us that they were going to have to tell their story before a jury box of strangers. And you've had to tell your story before the entire nation.

For so many years, people swept cases like yours under the rug. They'd say what happens inside a house didn't belong in the courthouse. Well, the times have changed, so I just want to thank you for coming forward today, and for sharing your report with us.

Now, I understand that you've taken a polygraph test, Dr. Ford, that found that you were being truthful when you described what happened to you. Can you tell us why you decided to take that test?

FORD: I was meeting with attorneys. I was interviewing various attorneys, and the attorneys I asked if I was willing to take it, and I said absolutely. That said, it was almost as anxiety-provoking as an airplane flight.

KLOBUCHAR: OK. And you've talked about your recollections, and seeing Mark Judge at that Safeway. If there had been an appropriate reopening of this background check and FBI interviews, would that help you find the time period, if you knew when he worked at that Safeway?

FORD: I feel like I could be much more helpful if I could be provided with that date through employment records or the IRS or something, any - anything that would help.

KLOBUCHAR: Thank you. I would assume that's true.

Dr. Ford, under federal law - and I don't expect you to know this, but statements made to medical professionals are considered to be more reliable. There's a federal rule of evidence about this. You told your counselor about this back in 2012, is that right?

FORD: My therapist?

KLOBUCHAR: Yes.

FORD: My individual therapist. Correct.

KLOBUCHAR: Right and I understand that your husband was also present when you spoke about this incident in front of a counselor and he recalls you using Judge Kavanaugh's name. Is that right?

FORD: Yes, I just have to slow down a minute because I might have been confusing. So there were two separate incidents...

KLOBUCHAR: Yes.

FORD: ...where it's reflected in my medical record. I had talked about it more than those two times, but therapists don't typically write down content as much as they write down process. They usually are tracking your symptoms and not your story and the facts.

KLOBUCHAR: Yes. Right.

FORD: I just happen to have it in my record twice. So the first time is in 2012 with my husband in couples therapy with the quibbling over the remodel, and then in 2013 with my individual therapist.

KLOBUCHAR: OK, so if - if someone had actually done an investigation your husband would have been able to say that you named his name at that time?

FORD: Correct.

KLOBUCHAR: OK. I know you've been concerned...

FORD: 2012.

KLOBUCHAR: ...with your privacy throughout the process, and you first requested that your account be kept confidential. Can you briefly tell us why?

FORD: Yes. So as I stated before, once - I was unsuccessful in getting my information to you before the candidate was chosen. My original intent was to get the information when there was still a list of other candidates available. And once that was not successful and I saw that persons were very supportive of the nominee, I tracked it...

KLOBUCHAR: OK.

FORD: ...all summer and realized that when I was calculating that risk-benefit ratio that it looked like I was going to just, you know, suffer only for no reason.

KLOBUCHAR: OK. You know from my experience with memory, I remember distinctly things that happened to me in high school or happened to me in college.

FORD: Yes.

KLOBUCHAR: But I don't exactly remember the date. I don't exactly remember the time. I sometimes may not even remember the exact place where it occurred, but I remember the interaction.

And many people are focused today on what you're not able to remember about that night. I actually think you remember a lot. I'm going to phrase it a little differently: can you tell us what you don't forget about that night?

FORD: The stairwell, the living room, the bedroom, the bed on the right side of the room as you walk into the room. There was a bed to the right. The bathroom in close proximity, the laughter, the uproarious laughter, and the multiple attempts to escape and the final ability to do so.

KLOBUCHAR: Thank you very much Dr. Ford.

GRASSLEY: Dr. Ford. I'm going to correct the record but it's not something that I'm saying that you stated wrongly because you may not know the fact that when - when you said that you didn't think it was possible for us to go to California as a committee or our investigators to go to California to talk to you, we did, in fact, offer that to you and we had the capability of doing it and we would've done it anywhere or anytime.

FORD: Thank you.

KLOBUCHAR: And Mr. Chairman, could I put the polygraph results on the record, please? The polygraph results in the record.

GRASSLEY: Without...

KLOBUCHAR: Is there any objection?

GRASSLEY: Oh, or - let us see the chart.

KLOBUCHAR: The polygraph? You want to all see it?

GRASSLEY: Will you hold just a minute, please?

KLOBUCHAR: I think you may have it.

GRASSLEY: Yes, can we have the underlying charts, too?

KLOBUCHAR: The underlying charts? I have the polygraph results that I would just like to put in the record. I'll - I'll deal with the charts after that. Could I put the polygraph tests in the record?

BROMWICH: Mr. Chairman, we were - we had proposed having the polygraph examiner testify, as you know. If that had happened, the full panoply of materials that he had supporting his examination would have been provided. You rejected that request, so what we did provide was the polygraph report, which is what the members of the committee currently have.

KLOBUCHAR: And on September 26th, Mr. Chairman, this was actually sent to your chief counsel. And I just want to share with America so that they have this report as well.

GRASSLEY: OK. We will accept, without objection, what you asked us to include but we're also requesting and expect the other materials that I've just stated.

KLOBUCHAR: But Mr. Chairman, you wouldn't allow the underlying witness who performed the polygraph test to testify, nor would you allow Mark Judge to testify. And so I would just like to point out - thank you for allowing this report in the record, but that is the reason that we don't have the underlying information for you.

GRASSLEY: You got what you wanted, I think you'd be satisfied.

BROMWICH: Mr. Chairman...

KLOBUCHAR: I am satisfied with that. Thank you.

GRASSLEY: Senator - go ahead.

GRAHAM: When was the polygraph administered?

KLOBUCHAR: It was administered on August the 7th...

GRAHAM: When was...

KLOBUCHAR: ...in 2018 and it was - the date of the report is August 10, 2018, Mr. Graham.

GRAHAM: When was it provided to the committee?

GRASSLEY: Let's just see if we can't do this in a more orderly way. Let's...

KLOBUCHAR: Well, it was - I was - he was asking and I have it right here and you have it as well. It was...

GRASSLEY: We've accepted...

KLOBUCHAR: ...September 26th.

GRASSLEY: We've accepted it.

KLOBUCHAR: All right.

GRASSLEY: Ms. Mitchell for Senator Cruz.

MITCHELL: Thank you. Dr. Ford, we've talked about the day and the night that you've described in the summer of 1982. And thank you for being willing to do that. I know it's difficult. I'd like to shift gears and discuss the last several months.

FORD: OK.

MITCHELL: In your statement, you said that on July 6th, you had a, quote, "sense of urgency to relay the information to the Senate and the president." Did you contact either the Senate or the president on or before July 6th?

FORD: No, I did not. I did not know how to do that.

MITCHELL: OK. Prior to July 6th, had you spoken to any member of Congress? And when I say Congress, I mean the Senate or the House of Representatives or any congressional staff members about your allegations?

FORD: No.

MITCHELL: Why did you contact the Washington Post, then, on July 6th?

FORD: So, I was panicking because I knew the timeline was short for the decision and people were giving me advice on the beach. People who don't know about the processes, but they were giving me advice.

And many people told me, "You need to hire a lawyer," and I didn't do that. I didn't understand why I would need a lawyer. Somebody said, "Call the New York Times, call the Washington Post, put in an anonymous tip, go to your congressperson."

And when I weighed those options, I felt like the best option was to try to do the civic route which is to go to my congressperson, who happens to be Anna Eshoo. So I called her office and I also put in the anonymous tip to The Washington Post. And neither - unfortunately, neither got back to me in - before the selection of the nominee.

MITCHELL: You testified that Congresswoman Eshoo's office contacted you on July 9th, is that right?

FORD: They contacted me the date that the nominee was announced, so that seems likely what...

MITCHELL: Had you talked to - about your allegations with anyone in her office before the date of July 9th?

FORD: I told the receptionist on the phone.

MITCHELL: OK. On July 10th, you texted The Washington Post again, which was really the third time, is that right? Second date, third time.

FORD: Let's see.

(UNKNOWN): (OFF-MIKE) One moment.

FORD: Correct.

MITCHELL: And you texted - been advised to contact senators or New York Times, haven't heard back from Washington Post. Who...

FORD: Yes.

MITCHELL: ... advised you to contact senators or The New York Times?

FORD: Beach friends...

MITCHELL: OK.

FORD: ... coming up with ideas of how I could try to get to people because people weren't responding to me very quickly. So very quickly, they responded to that text for what - unknown reason that once I sent that encrypted text, they responded very quickly.

MITCHELL: Did you contact The New York Times?

FORD: No.

MITCHELL: OK. Why not?

FORD: I wasn't interested in pursuing the media route, particularly. So I felt like one was enough, The Washington Post, and I was nervous about doing that. My preference was to talk with my congressperson.

MITCHELL: OK. The Washington Post texted back that someone would get in touch - get you in touch with a reporter. Did you subsequently talk to a reporter with The Washington Post?

FORD: Yes, under the encrypted app and off the record.

MITCHELL: OK. Who was that reporter?

FORD: Emma Brown.

MITCHELL: OK. The person who ultimately wrote the story on September 16th?

FORD: Correct.

MITCHELL: OK. Did you talk to any member of Congress - and, again, remember Congress includes the Senate, or the House of Representatives or any congressional staff members - about your allegations between July 10th and the July - and July 30th, which was the date of your letter to Senator Feinstein?

FORD: Yes, I met with Congresswoman Eshoo's staff. And I think that's July 18th, the Wednesday, and then on the Friday I met with the congresswoman herself.

MITCHELL: OK. When you met with her, did you meet with her alone or did someone come with you?

FORD: I was alone. She had a staff person.

MITCHELL: OK. What did you talk about with Congresswoman Eshoo and her staff on July 18th and the 20th?

FORD: I described the night of the incident and we spent time speaking about that. And I asked her how to - what my options were in terms of going forward and how to get that information relayed forward. And I also talked to her about fears of whether this was confidential information. And she talked about the constituent confidentiality principle.

MITCHELL: Thank you.

GRASSLEY: Senator Coons.

COONS: Thank you, Chairman Grassley. I'd like to ask unanimous consent to submit for the record five articles, including one titled "Why Sexual Assault Memories Stick," and one entitled "Why Didn't Kavanaugh Accuser Come Forward Earlier? Police Often Ignore Sexual Assault Allegations."

GRASSLEY: Without objection, so ordered.

COONS: Dr. Ford, I want to begin by thanking you for coming to testify in front of us today. You came forward with very serious and relevant information about a nominee for a lifetime position on our Supreme Court. You didn't have to, and I know you've done it at great personal cost. This is a public service, and I want you to know that I'm grateful to have the opportunity to hear from you directly today.

I'd like to just first follow up on that line of questioning Ms. Mitchell was following, because I think a lot of people don't realize that you chose to come forward with your concerns about Judge Kavanaugh before he was nominated to the Supreme Court. Do I understand correctly that when you - when you first reached out to Congresswoman Eshoo and to the Washington Post tip line, that was when he was on the short list, but before he was nominated to the Supreme Court. Is that correct?

FORD: Correct.

COONS: And if I understood your testimony earlier, it's that you were motivated by a sense of civic duty, and - and frankly, a 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.

FORD: Correct. I thought it was very important to get the information to you, but I didn't know how to do it while there was still a short list of candidates.

COONS: Thank you, Doctor.

According to Justice Department data, about two thirds of sexual assault survivors don't report their assaults. Based on your experience, I'd be interested in hearing from you about this, because you bore this alone. You bore this alone for a very long time, and it'd be helpful for us to better understand the ways that that's impacted your whole life.

FORD: Well, it's - it's impacted me at different stages of the development of my life. So the immediate impact was probably the worst, so the first four years. I think I described earlier a fairly disastrous first two years of undergraduate studies at University of North Carolina, where I was finally able to pull myself together. And then, once coping with - with the immediate impacts, the short-term impacts, I experienced, like, longer-term impacts of anxiety and relationship challenges.

COONS: Thank you for sharing that. And - and yet, you went on to get a PhD from USC. Is that correct?

FORD: Correct.

COONS: As you predicted, there was a wide range of responses to your coming forward. Some thousands of survivors have been motivated and inspired by your courage; others have been critical. And as I've reviewed the wide range of reactions, I've been really troubled by the excuse offered by too many, that this was a high school incident, and boys will be boys. To me, that's just far too low a standard for the conduct of boys and men in our country. If you would, I'd appreciate your reaction to the excuse that boys will be boys.

FORD: I can only speak for how it has impacted me greatly for the last 36 years, even though I was 15 years old at the time. And I think, you know, the younger you are when these things happen, it could possibly have worse impact than when you're a full - when your brain is fully-developed, and you have better coping skills that you've developed.

COONS: You know, experts have written about how it's common for sexual assault survivors to remember some facts about the experience very sharply and very clearly, but not others, and that has to do with the survival mode that we go into in experiencing trauma. Is that your experience, and is that something you can help the layperson understand?

FORD: Yes. I was definitely experiencing the fight-or-flight mode; is that what you're referring to? Yes.

So I was definitely experiencing the surge of adrenaline and cortisol and norepinephrine and - credit that a little bit for my ability to get out of the situation.

But also some other lucky events that occurred. That...

COONS: Well...

FORD: ...allowed me to get out of the event.

COONS: Dr. Ford, we are grateful that you came through it and that you shared your account with us and the American people. And I think you've provided important information. I'd like to thank you for your - meeting your civic duty.

I wish we could have provided for you a more thorough hearing today. I think asking for the FBI to investigate this matter thoroughly was not asking too much. I think asking to have the other individual involved in your assault, Mark Judge, appear before us today was not asking too much.

I'm grateful you came forward, and I'm thankful for your courage, which set an important example. Thank you, Dr. Ford.

GRASSLEY: Ms. Mitchell, for Senator Sasse.

MITCHELL: Dr. Ford, we were talking about you meeting in July with Congresswoman Eshoo.

FORD: Yes.

MITCHELL: Did you talk about your allegations with any Republican member of Congress or congressional staff?

FORD: I did not. Where I live, the congresswoman is a Democrat.

MITCHELL: OK.

Was it communicated to you by your counsel or someone else, that the committee had asked to interview you and that - that they offered to come out to California to do so?

BROMWICH: We're going to object, Mr. Chairman, to any call for privileged conversations between counsel and Dr. Ford. It's a privileged conversation...

(CROSSTALK)

GRASSLEY: Would - could - could we - could you validate the fact that the offer was made without her saying a word?

BROMWICH: (OFF-MIKE)

GRASSLEY: Is it possible for that question to be answered without violating any counsel relationships?

FORD: Can I say something to you - do you mind if I say something to you directly?

GRASSLEY: Yes.

FORD: I just appreciate that you did offer that. I wasn't clear on what the offer was. If you were going to come out to see me, I would have happily hosted you and had you - had been happy to speak with you out there. I just did not - it wasn't clear to me that that was the case.

GRASSLEY: OK. Does that take care of your question?

MITCHELL: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

GRASSLEY: OK. Proceed, then.

MITCHELL: Before July 30th, the date on your letter to Senator Feinstein, had you retained counsel with regard to these allegations?

FORD: No. I didn't think - I didn't understand why I would need lawyers, actually. That's what - I just didn't know.

MITCHELL: A lot of people have that feeling.

(LAUGHTER)

Let's talk about the letter that you wrote on July 30th. You asked Senator Feinstein to main (ph) confidentiality, quote, "until"...

BROMWICH: Wait - wait until she retrieves it.

MITCHELL: Oh, I'm sorry.

FORD: OK. I'm just trying to look for it, which one?

BROMWICH: I think it's - I think it's the (inaudible).

FORD: OK.

GRASSLEY: Stop the clock, will you?

BROMWICH: It's in there someplace.

Here we go...

FORD: Oh, I found it.

BROMWICH: ...here it is. You've got it.

FORD: Sorry.

MITCHELL: OK. You asked Senator Feinstein to maintain confidentiality "until we have had further opportunity to speak," and then said you were available to speak further vacationing in the Mid-Atlantic until August 7th. Is that correct?

FORD: The last line, is that what you're - I'm - I'm now just catching up with you, sorry. I'm a little slower. My mind is getting a little tired.

"I am available to speak further, should you wish to discuss. I am" - yes, I was in Delaware until August 7.

MITCHELL: OK.

FORD: And after that, I went to New Hampshire and then back to California.

MITCHELL: Did you talk with anybody about this letter before you sent it?

FORD: I talked with Anna Eshoo's office.

MITCHELL: OK. And why did you talk to Congresswoman Eshoo's office about that letter?

FORD: Because they were willing to hand-deliver it to Senator Feinstein.

MITCHELL: OK. Did anyone help you write the letter?

FORD: No.

MITCHELL: OK. After you sent your letter, did you or anyone on your behalf speak to Senator Feinstein personally or with any Senate staffer?

FORD: Yes.

MITCHELL: OK.

FORD: I had a phone call with Senator Feinstein.

MITCHELL: OK. And when was that?

FORD: That was while I was still in Delaware, so before August 7th.

MITCHELL: OK. And how many times did you speak with Senator Feinstein?

FORD: Once.

MITCHELL: OK. What did you talk about?

FORD: She asked me some questions about the incident.

MITCHELL: OK.

FORD: And I answered those questions.

MITCHELL: OK. Was that the extent of - the gist of the conversation?

FORD: Yes, it was a fairly brief phone - phone call.

MITCHELL: OK. Did you ever give Senator Feinstein or anyone else the permission to release that letter?

FORD: Not that I know of, no.

MITCHELL: OK. Between the letter date, July 30th and August the 7th, did you speak with any other person about your allegations?

FORD: Could you say the dates again?

MITCHELL: Between the letter date of July 30 and August 7 - so, while you were still in Delaware - did you speak with any other person about your allegations?

FORD: I'm just trying to remember what dates that.

GRASSLEY: Stop the...

(UNKNOWN): You're asking her...

GRASSLEY: ... Yes, stop the - stop the clock.

(UNKNOWN): ... with the exclusion of any lawyers that she may have spoken with, correct?

MITCHELL: Correct.

FORD: Correct - I think correct, then. I was interviewing lawyers...

GRASSLEY: Stop the clock.

FORD: ... but I was not...

MITCHELL: OK.

FORD: ... speaking personally about it.

MITCHELL: Aside from Lawyers that you were seeking to possibly hire to represent you, did you speak to anybody else about it during that period of time?

FORD: No.

MITCHELL: OK.

FORD: I was staying with my parents at the time.

MITCHELL: Did you talk to them about it?

FORD: Definitely not.

MITCHELL: OK. So would it be fair to say that you retained counsel during that time period of July 30th to August 7th?

FORD: I can't remember the exact date, but it was the - I was interviewing lawyers during that period of time, sitting in the car in the driveway and in the Walgreens parking lot in Rehoboth, Delaware. And I'm trying to figure out how the whole system works of interviewing lawyers and how to pick one, et cetera, so.

MITCHELL: You testified earlier that you had - you didn't see the need for lawyers. And now, you're trying to hire them. What made you change your mind?

FORD: It seemed like most of the individuals that I had told, which didn't - the - the total number - the total was not very high. But those persons advised me to, at this point, get a lawyer for advice about whether to push forward or to stay back.

MITCHELL: Did that include Congresswoman Eshoo and Senator Feinstein?

FORD: No.

MITCHELL: OK.

GRASSLEY: I want to thank Dr. Ford for what you said about acknowledging that we had said we'd come to California.

Senator Blumenthal.

BLUMENTHAL: Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

I want to join in thanking you for being here today. And just tell you I have found your testimony powerful, incredible and I believe you. You're a teacher, correct?

FORD: Correct.

BLUMENTHAL: Well, you have given America an amazing teaching moment, and you may have other moments in the classroom, but you have inspired and you have enlightened America. You have inspired and given courage to women to come forward, as they have done to every one of our offices and many other public places. You have inspired and you have enlightened men in America to listen respectfully to women survivors, and men who have survived sexual attack, and that is a profound public service, regardless of what happens with this nomination. And so the teachers of America, the people of America should be really proud of what you have done.

Let me tell you why I believe you: not only because of the prior consistent statements and the polygraph tests and your request for an FBI investigation and your urging that this committee hear from other witnesses who could corroborate or dispute your story, but also, you have been very honest about what you cannot remember. And someone composing a story can make it all come together in a seamless way, but someone who is honest - I speak from my experience as a prosecutor, as well - is also candid about what she or he cannot remember.

The senators on the other side of the aisle have been silent. This procedure is unprecedented in a confirmation hearing. But I want to quote one of my colleagues, Senator Lindsey Graham, in a book that he wrote in 2015, when he was describing his own service, and very distinguished Naval service as a traveler.

GRAHAM: (OFF MIKE) Air Force, Air Force.

BLUMENTHAL: I'm not under oath.

(LAUGHTER)

(UNKNOWN): I don't want to be in the Navy (ph).

BLUMENTHAL: He said, quote, of his prosecutions of rape cases, "I learned how much unexpected courage from a deep and hidden place it takes for a rape victim or sexually abused child to testify against their assailant." I learned how much courage from a deep and hidden place it takes for a rape victim or sexually abused child to testify against their assailant. If we agree on nothing else today, I hope on a bipartisan basis, we can agree on how much courage it has taken for you to come forward, and I think you have earned America's gratitude.

Now, there's been some talk about your requesting an FBI investigation, and you mentioned a point just a few minutes ago that you could better-estimate the time that you ran into Mark Judge if you knew the time that he was working at that supermarket. That's a fact that could be uncovered by an FBI investigation that would help further elucidate your account. Would you like Mark Judge to be interviewed in connection with the background investigation and the serious credible allegations that you've made?

FORD: That would be my preference. I'm not sure it's really up to me, but I certainly would feel like I could be more helpful to everyone if I knew the date that he worked at the Safeway so that I could give a better - a more specific date of the assault.

BLUMENTHAL: Well, it's not up to you. It's up to the president of the United States, and his failure to ask for an FBI investigation, in my view, is tantamount to a cover-up.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

GRASSLEY: Now it's time for Senator Flake. Ms. Mitchell for Senator Flake.

MITCHELL: Thank you.

And we've heard this morning several times that you did take a polygraph, and that was on August the 7th. Is that right?

FORD: I believe so. It was the day I was flying from BWI to Manchester, New Hampshire.

MITCHELL: OK. Why did you decide to take a polygraph?

FORD: I - I didn't see any reason not to do it.

MITCHELL: Were you advised to do that?

BROMWICH: Again, you're - you're seeming to call for communications between counsel and client. I don't think you mean to do that. If you do, she shouldn't have to answer that.

GRASSLEY: Could - what - Counsel, could you let her answer the extent to which it doesn't violate the - the relationship between you and Dr. Ford?

BROMWICH: Say what you understood.

FORD: Based on the advice of the counsel, I was happy to undergo the polygraph test, although I found it extremely stressful, much longer than I anticipated. I told my whole life story, I felt like, but I endured it. It was fine.

MITCHELL: I understand they can be that way.

Have you ever taken any other polygraphs in your life?

FORD: Never.

MITCHELL: OK. You went to see a gentleman by the name of Jeremiah Hanafin to serve as the polygrapher. Did anyone advise you on that choice?

FORD: Yes, I believe his name was Jerry.

MITCHELL: Jerry Hanafin.

FORD: Yeah.

MITCHELL: OK. Did anyone advise you on that choice?

FORD: I don't understand the - the - yeah, I didn't choose him myself. He was the person that came to do the polygraph test.

MITCHELL: OK. He actually conducted the polygraph, not in his office in Virginia, but actually, at the hotel next to Baltimore Washington Airport. Is that right?

FORD: Correct.

MITCHELL: Why was that location chosen for the polygraph?

FORD: I had left my grandmother's funeral at Fort Lincoln Cemetery that day, and was on tight schedule to get a plane to Manchester, New Hampshire, so he was willing to come to me, which was appreciated.

MITCHELL: So he administered a polygraph on the day that you attended your grandmother's funeral.

FORD: Yeah, correct.

MITCHELL: OK.

FORD: Or it might have been the next day. I spent the night in a hotel, so (inaudible) the exact day.

MITCHELL: Have you ever had discussions with anyone, beside your attorneys, on how to take a polygraph?

FORD: Never.

MITCHELL: And I don't just mean countermeasures, but I mean just any sort of tips, or anything like that.

FORD: No. I was scared of the test itself, but was comfortable that I could tell the information, and the test would reveal whatever it was going to reveal. I didn't expect it to be as long as it was going to be, so it was a little bit stressful.

MITCHELL: Had - have you ever given tips or advice to somebody who was looking to take a polygraph test?

FORD: Never.

MITCHELL: OK. Did you pay for the polygraph yourself?

FORD: I don't - I don't - I don't think so.

MITCHELL: OK. Do you know who did pay for the polygraph?

FORD: Not yet, so.

MITCHELL: Did - you - you have the hand-written statement that you wrote out. Did anyone assist you in writing that statement?

FORD: No, but you can tell how anxious I was by the terrible handwriting.

MITCHELL: Did you - we - we touched on it earlier. Did you know that the committee has requested the - not only the charts from the polygraph test, but also any audio or video recording of the polygraph test?

FORD: No.

MITCHELL: Were you audio- and video-recorded when you were taking that test?

FORD: OK, so I remember being hooked up to a machine, like, be - being placed onto my body, and being asked a lot of questions, and crying a lot. That's my primary memory of that test. I don't know - I know he took laborious detail into explaining what he was going to be doing, but I was just focused on kind of what I was going to say, and my fear about that. I wasn't listening to every detail about the - what - whether it was audio- or video-recorded.

MITCHELL: Well, you were in a hotel room, right?

FORD: Correct.

MITCHELL: A regular hotel room with a bed and bathroom?

FORD: No, no, no. It was a conference room.

MITCHELL: OK.

FORD: So I was sitting at a chair, and he was behind me.

MITCHELL: Did you note any cameras in the room?

FORD: Well, he had a computer set up, so I guess I assumed that he was somehow taping and recording me.

MITCHELL: OK. So you assumed you were being video- and audio-recorded.

FORD: Correct.

MITCHELL: But you don't know for sure.

FORD: I don't know for sure.

MITCHELL: OK, thank you.

GRASSLEY: We're going to recess now for a half hour for lunch. Thank you, Dr. Ford.

(UNKNOWN): Hopefully.

FORD: We're going to keep going for (inaudible)

GRASSLEY: Yeah.

FEINSTEIN: So 10 minutes after one, we're going to...

GRASSLEY: Yeah, roughly. Yeah.

(CROSSTALK)

(RECESS)

GRASSLEY: Dr. Ford, you tell me when you're ready. You...

FORD: I'm just organizing my papers. I'll be ready in...

GRASSLEY: Take as long as you need.

FORD: ... 20 seconds. Thank you.

I'm ready.

GRASSLEY: OK.

(GAVEL)

Senator Hirono?

HIRONO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, is it your intent to cede all Republican senators' time to your prosecutor, rather than they themselves ceding their time to her?

GRASSLEY: Yes.

HIRONO: 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 the attack. The prosecutor should know that sexual assault survivors often do not remember peripheral 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-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, so 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?

FORD: No, and I'd like to reiterate that again, I was trying to get the information to you while there was still a list of other...

HIRONO: Thank you.

FORD: ... what looked like equally-qualified candidates.

HIRONO: 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, and 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 a man we are considering for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme 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 - of basically re-victimization experiences have come your ways. But by coming forward, you have inserted the question of character into this nomination, and hopefully, back into American life, and rightly so. We should be made to face the question of who it is we are putting in positions of power and decision-making in this country. We should look the question square in the face: does character matter? Do our values, our real values about what is right and what is wrong, and about whether we treat our fellow human beings with dignity and respect, do they matter anymore? I believe they do, and I believe the reaction we have 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 admits on tape to assaulting women. He - he separates children from their parents. He takes basic healthcare protections from those who need them most. He nominates and stands behind a man who stands credibly accused of a horrible act. I, again, want to thank you for coming forward.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that six items consisting of various statements, letters, fact sheet, posts are inserted into the record.

GRASSLEY: Is that one request, or you want me to wait for six?

HIRONO: Well, I have six separate items.

GRASSLEY: OK.

HIRONO: Because as - I can go over them for you.

GRASSLEY: OK, no.

HIRONO: I would like to...

GRASSLEY: Let me not interrupt you.

HIRONO: OK.

GRASSLEY: Your - your request is accepted without objection.

HIRONO: Thank you. And I would like to read from a - an item that has already been entered into the record. But 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 a 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 victims into the shadows, and further emboldening abusers."

Once again, Dr. Ford, thank you very much. This is a moment for our country. Mahalo.

GRASSLEY: Senator - Ms. Mitchell for Senator Crapo.

MITCHELL: Good afternoon.

FORD: Hi.

MITCHELL: 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?

(UNKNOWN): Let me put an end to this misery. Her lawyers have paid for her polygraph.

(UNKNOWN): As is routine.

(UNKNOWN): As is routine.

MITCHELL: Dr. Ford, do you expect the price of that polygraph to be passed on to you?

FORD: I'm not sure yet. I haven't taken a look at all of the costs involved in this. 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.

MITCHELL: I - I - 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 for your polygraph?

FORD: I'm aware that there's been several GoFundMe sites that I haven't had a chance to figure out how to manage those, because I've never had one done for me.

MITCHELL: And I'm sorry, several what?

FORD: GoFund...

(UNKNOWN): GoFundMe.

FORD: GoFundMe sites that have raised money, primarily for our security detail. So I'm not even quite sure how to collect that money or - and (ph) how to distribute it yet. I haven't been able to focus on that.

MITCHELL: OK. In your testimony this morning, you stated that Senator Feinstein sent you a letter on August 31st of this year, is that right?

FORD: August 31st let me see.

GRASSLEY: Stop the clock (ph).

FORD: 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 that - it was right before the hearings that she was going to maintain the confidentiality of the - of the letter.

MITCHELL: Say that again, it was right before the hearings, then what?

FORD: That's my memory, but I could look it up for you. If you would like the exact date, I could pull it up on my e-mail.

MITCHELL: Yes, I just - I want to make sure...

(UNKNOWN): (inaudible) the date, counsel?

MITCHELL: I want to make sure I understood what she - you said.

(UNKNOWN): That document's been turned over to - in response to a request for documents. You have it.

MITCHELL: Thank you, counsel. I want to make sure I understood what you said. Was it your understanding, it was going to be kept confidential up until right before the hearing?

FORD: It was my understanding that it was going to be kept confidential period.

MITCHELL: Period? OK. 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?

FORD: I personally did not.

MITCHELL: So my question was, did you or anybody on your behalf.

FORD: I don't - what do you mean, did someone speak for me?

MITCHELL: 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?

FORD: I'm not sure.

MITCHELL: OK.

FORD: I'm not sure how those exchanges went, but I didn't speak to anyone.

MITCHELL: OK. Is it possible that somebody did?

FORD: I - I - I think so, it would be possible. I - I'm guessing it would be possible (ph), but I don't know.

(UNKNOWN): Excuse me. You've all 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.

MITCHELL: Is that an objection (ph), counsel?

(UNKNOWN): It is an objection (ph)...

MITCHELL: I'll have the chair rule on that.

FORD: I don't know what the - I don't understand.

GRASSLEY: (OFF-MIKE) (inaudible) you should - you should answer the question, unless there's a legal reason for not answering it on advice of your counsel.

FORD: So I don't totally understand the question, but I didn't speak with anyone during that timeframe other than my counsel.

MITCHELL: OK. You've said repeatedly that you did not think that that letter that you wrote on July 30th was going to be released to the public, is that correct?

FORD: Correct.

MITCHELL: OK. And is it true that you did not authorize it to be released at any time?

FORD: Correct.

MITCHELL: OK. Besides your attorneys, did you provide - you provided that letter to Senator Feinstein, is that correct?

FORD: I provided her a letter on July 30th.

MITCHELL: We're talking about the July 30th...

FORD: OK.

MITCHELL: ... letter.

FORD: OK.

MITCHELL: Did you - and you provided that letter to Senator Feinstein, correct?

FORD: (OFF-MIKE)

MITCHELL: Is that a yes?

FORD: Yes.

MITCHELL: And you provided the letter to Representative Eshoo to deliver to Senator Feinstein?

FORD: Yes.

MITCHELL: Besides those two individuals, Representative Eshoo and Senator Feinstein, and your attorneys, did you provide that letter to anyone else?

FORD: No.

MITCHELL: Do you know how that letter became public?

FORD: No.

MITCHELL: OK. After that letter was made public or leaked, did you reach back out to The Washington Post?

FORD: 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.

MITCHELL: OK.

GRASSLEY: Senator Booker.

BOOKER: 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, that you are here under your own volition and though the prosecutor's been engaged here to represent my colleagues, you're here, as you said, out of a - a civic duty.

And I - I want to join my colleagues that it - it's really more than that. You know, our founding documents talk about civic duty. Our Declaration of Independence talks about for this country pledging your lives, your fortunes and your sacred honor.

And anybody who's read your testimony knows what you've had to sacrifice by coming forward. Your life has been upended. 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 the most important obligations a senator has; to advise and consent on one of the branches of our government, the highest courts in the land, and the (ph) individual going before a lifetime appointment. And you even said that the president had a lot of folks on that list.

And your fear was that this individual who assaulted you would ascend to that seat. That's correct, right?

FORD: Correct.

BOOKER: Yes. And it is correct that you have given a lot of resources, taken a lot of threats to come forward, correct?

FORD: Correct.

BOOKER: Assaults on your dignity and your humanity?

FORD: Absolutely.

BOOKER: How has it affected your children?

FORD: They're doing fairly well, considering. Thank you for asking.

BOOKER: And your husband?

FORD: Doing fairly well, considering. Yes, thank you. Thank - we have a very supportive community.

BOOKER: 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 - is by you coming forward, your courage, you are effecting the culture of our country.

We have a - a wonderful nation, an incredible culture. But there are dark elements that allow unconscionable levels of - unacceptable levels of sexual assault and harassment that are effecting girls and boys, and effecting men and women, from big media outlets, to corporations, to factory floors, to servers in restaurants, so our intimate spaces in homes and apartments all around this country.

I stepped out during the break and was deluged with notes from friends all around the country, social media posts, that there are literally hundreds of thousands of people watching your testimony right now. And in note after note that I got, people in tears feeling pain and anguish, not just feeling your pain but feeling their own, who have not come forward.

You are opening up to open air, hurt and pain that goes on across this country. And for that, the word I would use, it's nothing short of heroic. Because what you're doing for our nation right now, besides giving testimony germane to one the most sacred obligations of our offices, is you are speaking truth that this country needs to understand.

And how we deal with survivors who come forward right now is unacceptable. And the way we deal with this, unfortunately, allows for the continued darkness of this culture to exist. And your brilliance shining light onto this, speaking your truth is nothing short of heroic.

But to the matter at hand, one of my colleagues who I have a lot of respect for and I do consider him a friend went, to the Senate floor and spoke truth to both sides of the political aisle. Senator Flake said yesterday, "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 fully aired and considered."

I agree with him. But you've asked for things that would give a full airing, from corroborating witnesses to be called, you've 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 deliberative body, have not been honored in this so-called investigation?

FORD: 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 at more information.

BOOKER: Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to introduce for the record, seven letters by the Lambda Legal; from Mormon Women for Ethical Government; youth-led organizations around this country; the International Unions Bricklayers, Allied Craftworkers; a letter from 295 survivors of sexual violence in support of Dr. Ford; and a letter from 1,600 men to campaign in support of Dr. Ford; and those who want to assert men and women that survivors of sexual violence are not opportunists, do not have political axes to grind, but are coming forward with courage and with heart to speak their truth and try to end the scourge of sexual assault and violence in our country.

GRASSLEY: Without objection, so ordered. Senator Tills - Ms. Mitchell, for Senator Tillis.

MITCHELL: Dr. Ford, in choosing attorneys, did anyone help you with the choice on who to choose?

FORD: Various people referred me to lawyers they knew in the Washington, D.C. area. So as you know, I grew up in this area, so I asked some family members and friends and they would - they referred me to, like, divorce attorneys that might know somebody, that might know somebody and ended up interviewing several law firms from the D.C. area.

MITCHELL: And did anybody besides friends and family refer you to any attorneys?

(CORRECTED COPY - CORRECTS SPELLING)

FORD: I think that the staff of Dianne Feinstein's office suggested the possibility of some attorneys.

MITCHELL: OK. Including the two that are sitting on either side of you?

FORD: Not both of them, no.

MITCHELL: OK. We've heard a lot about FBI investigations. When did you personally first request an FBI investigation?

FORD: I guess when we first started talking about the possibility of a hearing; I was hoping that there would be an - a more thorough investigation.

MITCHELL: Would that investigation have been something that you would have submitted to an interview?

FORD: I would be happy to cooperate with the FBI, yes.

MITCHELL: Would you have been happy to submit to an interview on - by staff members from this committee?

FORD: Absolutely.

MITCHELL: OK. Besides - you mentioned some GoFundMe 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 occurred - incurred?

FORD: It's my understanding that some of my team is working on a pro bono basis, but I don't know the exact details. And there are members of the community in Palo Alto that have the means to contribute to help me with the security detail, et cetera.

MITCHELL: Have you been provided...

(CORRECTED COPY - CORRECTS SPEAKER IDENTIFICATION)

BROMWICH: I - I can help you with that. Both her co-counsel (ph) are doing this pro bono. We are not being paid and we have no expectation of being paid.

MITCHELL: ... Thank you, counsel. Have you seen any of the questions that I was going to ask you today?

FORD: No.

MITCHELL: Have you - you've been asked a few questions by other people as well, have you seen any of those questions in advance?

FORD: No.

MITCHELL: Have you been told them in advance?

FORD: No.

MITCHELL: And - and likewise with my questions, have you been told my questions in advance?

FORD: Definitely not.

MITCHELL: OK. You mentioned about some possible information, such as when Mark Judge worked at the supermarket. I want to ask you about someone else. You mentioned that there was a classmate who was really sort of the connection between you and Brett Kavanaugh. Who was this person?

FORD: I - I think that that case with Mr. Whelan, who was looking at my LinkedIn page and then trying to blame the person, I just don't feel like it's right for us to be talking about that.

MITCHELL: I'm not trying to blame anybody, I just want to know who the common friend that you and...

FORD: The person that Mr. Whelan was trying to say looked like Mr. Kavanaugh.

MITCHELL: ... OK. How long did you know this person?

FORD: Maybe for a couple of months we socialized, but he also was a member of the same country club and I know his younger brother as well.

MITCHELL: OK. So a couple of months before this took place?

FORD: Yes.

MITCHELL: OK. How would you characterize your relationship with him, both before and after this took place, this person?

FORD: He was somebody that, we use the phrase, I went out with - I wouldn't say date - I went out with for a few months. That was how we termed it at the time. And after that we were distant friends and ran into each other periodically at Columbia Country Club, but I didn't see him often.

MITCHELL: OK.

FORD: But I saw his brother and him several times.

MITCHELL: Was this person the only common link between you and Mr. - Judge Kavanaugh?

FORD: He's the only one that I would be able to name right now - that I would like to not name, but you know who I mean. And - but there are certainly other members of Columbia Country Club that were common friends or they were more acquaintances of mine and friends of Mr. Kavanaugh.

MITCHELL: OK. Can you describe all of the other social interactions that you had with Mr. Kavanaugh?

FORD: Briefly, yes I can. There were during freshman and sophomore year, particularly my sophomore year which would have been his junior year of high school, four to five parties that my friends and I attended that were attended also by him.

MITCHELL: Did anything happen at these events like we're talking about, besides the time we're talking about?

GRASSLEY: You - you can answer that question then I'll go to Senator Harris. Go ahead and answer that question.

FORD: There was no sexual assault at any of those events. Is that what you're asking?

MITCHELL: Yes.

FORD: Yes, those were just parties.

MITCHELL: Or anything inappropriate is what I meant (ph).

FORD: Well maybe we can go into more detail when there's more time, I feel time pressure on that question, yes.

MITCHELL: OK.

FORD: Happy to answer in further detail if you want me to.

GRASSLEY: I'm sorry, go ahead and finish answering your question.

FORD: Oh OK. Did you want me to describe those parties or...

(CORRECTED COPY - CORRECTS SPEAKER IDENTIFICATION)

(UNKNOWN): Shouldn't we leave this to the next round, Mr. Chairman?

GRASSLEY: Answer the question.

FORD: I'm just happy to describe them if you wanted me to and I'm happy to not. It's just whatever you want.

MITCHELL: Maybe this will -

FORD: Whatever is your preference.

MITCHELL: - cut to the chase. My question is was there anything else that was sexually inappropriate, any inappropriate sexual behavior on the part of Mr. Kavanaugh towards you at any of these other functions?

FORD: No.

MITCHELL: OK.

GRASSLEY: Senator Harris.

HARRIS: Dr. Ford, first of all just so we can level set, you know you are not on trial. You are not on trial. You are sitting here before members of the United States Senate Judiciary Committee because you had the courage to come forward because as you have said, you believe it was your civic duty.

I was struck in your testimony by what you indicated as your intention when you first let anyone associated with these hearings know about it. And what you basically said is you reached out to your representative in the United States Congress, hoping that person would inform the White House before Judge Kavanaugh had been named.

That's extremely persuasive about your motivation for coming forward. And so I want to thank you, I want to thank you for your courage and I want to tell you I believe you. I believe you.

And I believe many Americans across this country believe you. And what I find striking about your testimony is you remember key searing details of what happened to you. You told you husband and therapist, two of the most intimate of your confidants, and you told them years ago about this assault.

You have shared your experience with multiple friends years after that and before these hearings ever started. I know having personally prosecuted sexual assault cases and child sexual assault cases, that study after study shows trauma, shame and the fear of consequences almost always cause survivors to, at the very least, delay reporting if they ever report at all.

Police recognize that, prosecutors recognize that, medical and mental health professionals recognize that. The notes from your therapy sessions were created long before this nomination and corroborate what you have said today.

You have passed a polygraph - polygraph and submitted the results to this committee. Judge Kavanaugh has not. You have called for outside witnesses to testify and for expert witnesses to testify. Judge Kavanaugh has not.

But most importantly you have called for an independent FBI investigation into the facts. Judge Kavanaugh has not. And we owe you that, we owe the American people that. And let's talk about why this is so important.

Contrary to what has been said today, the FBI does not reach conclusions. The FBI investigates. It interviews witnesses, gathers facts and then presents that information to the United States Senate for our consideration and judgment.

This committee knows that, in spite of what you have been told. In 1991 during a similar hearing, one of my Republican colleagues in this committee stated these claims were taken seriously by having the Federal Bureau of Investigations launch an inquiry to determine their validity.

The FBI fulfilled its duty and issued a confidential report. Well that could have and should have been done here. This morning it was said that this could have been investigated confidentially back in July, but this also could have been investigated in the last 11 days since you came forward, yet that has not happened.

The FBI could have interviewed Mark Judge, Patrick Smith, Leland - Leland Keyser, you and Judge Kavanaugh on these issues. The FBI could have examined various maps that have been presented by the prosecutor who stands in for the United States senators on this committee.

The FBI could have gathered facts about the music or the conversation or any other details about the gathering that occurred that evening. That is standard procedure in a sexual assault case.

In fact, the manual that is - was signed off by Ms. Mitchell, the manual that is posted on the Maricopa County attorney's website as a guiding principle and best practices 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.

It says, quote, "effective investigation requires cooperation with a multi-disciplinary team that includes medical professionals, victim advocates, dedicated forensic interviewers, criminalists and other law enforcement members."

The manual also 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 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.

GRASSLEY: Senator Kennedy now, so we'll proceed, Ms. Mitchell.

MITCHELL: Dr. Ford, we're almost done. Just a couple clean up questions first of all. Which - which of your two lawyers did Senator Feinstein's office recommend?

FORD: The Katz -

MITCHELL: I'm sorry?

FORD: The Katz firm.

MITCHELL: OK. And when you - when you did leave that night, did Leland Keyser - now Keyser ever follow up with you and say hey, what happened to you?

FORD: I have had communications with her recently.

MITCHELL: I'm talking about like the next day.

FORD: Oh no, she didn't know about the event. She was downstairs during the event and I did not share it with her.

MITCHELL: OK. Have you been in - are you aware that the three people at the party besides yourself and - and Brett Kavanaugh have given statements under penalty of felony to the committee?

FORD: Yes.

MITCHELL: And are you aware of what those statements say?

FORD: Yes.

MITCHELL: Are you aware that they say that they have no memory or knowledge of such a party?

FORD: Yes.

MITCHELL: OK. Do you have any particular motives to ascribe to Leland?

FORD: I guess we could take those one at a time. Leland has significant health challenges, and I'm happy that she's focusing on herself and getting the health treatment that she needs, and she let me know that she needed her lawyer to take care of this for her, and she texted me right afterward with an apology and good wishes, and et cetera, So I'm glad that she's taking care of herself.

I don't expect that P.J. and Leland would remember this evening. It was a very unremarkable party. It was not one of their more notorious parties, because nothing remarkable happened to them that evening. They were downstairs.

And Mr. Judge is a different story. I would expect that he would remember that this happened.

MITCHELL: Understood.

Senator Harris just questioned you from the Maricopa County Protocol on Sexual Assault. The - that's the paper she was holding out. Are you aware that - and you know, I've - I've been really impressed today, because you've talked about norepinephrine and cortisol, and what we call in the profession, basically, the neurobiological effects of trauma. Have you also educated yourself on the best way to get to memory and truth, in terms of interviewing victims of trauma?

FORD: For me interviewing victims of trauma?

MITCHELL: No, to...

FORD: Oh.

MITCHELL: The best way to do it, the - the best practices for interviewing victims of trauma.

FORD: No.

MITCHELL: OK. Would you believe me if I told you that there's no study that says that this setting in five minute increments is the best way to do that?

(LAUGHTER)

(CORRECTED COPY - CORRECTS SPEAKER IDENTIFICATION)

BROMWICH: We'll stipulate to that.

(UNKNOWN): We could stipulate to that.

MITCHELL: Thank you, Counsel.

(UNKNOWN): Agreed.

MITCHELL: Did you know that the best way to do it is to have a trained interviewer talk to you one-on-one in a private setting, and to let you do the talking, just let you do a narrative? Did you know that?

FORD: That makes a - a lot of sense.

MITCHELL: It does make a lot of sense, doesn't it?

FORD: Yes.

MITCHELL: And then to follow up, obviously, to fill in the details and - and ask for clarification. Does that make sense, as well?

FORD: Yes.

MITCHELL: And - and the research is done by a lot of people in the child abuse field. Two of the more prominent ones in the sexual assault field are Geisel and Fisher, who've talked about it, and it's called a cognitive interview. This is not a cognitive interview.

Did anybody ever advise you from Senator Feinstein's office, or from Representative Eshoo's office to go get a forensic interview?

FORD: No.

MITCHELL: Instead, you were advised to get an attorney and take a polygraph. Is that right?

FORD: Many people advised me to get an attorney. Once I had an attorney, my attorney and I discussed a - using the polygraph.

MITCHELL: And instead of submitting to an interview in California, we're having a hearing here today in five-minute increments. Is that right?

FORD: I - I agree that's what was agreed upon by the collegial group here.

MITCHELL: OK. Thank you. I have no further questions.

GRASSLEY: OK, I have something to submit for the record. We received three statements under penalty of felony from three witnesses identified by Dr. Ford: Mark Judge, Leland Keyser and Patrick Smyth. All three denied any knowledge of the incident, or a gathering described by Dr. Ford. Without objection, I'll enter in the record.

BLUMENTHAL: Mr. Chairman, I have something for the record, as well...

GRASSLEY: A...

BLUMENTHAL: ... a number of letters from the witness's family friends, including her husband.

GRASSLEY: OK. I'll get you just as soon as the ranking member.

FEINSTEIN: Mr. Chairman, I have three letters addressed to both you and the ranking member, and I'd ask that they be entered into the record.

GRASSLEY: Without objection.

FEINSTEIN: And it's also my understanding that Mr. Judge is not willing to come forward to answer our questions. As a result, we cannot test his memory, or make any assessment of his thoughtfulness or character. And I think that's why the failure to call him to testify is so very critical, and I hope the majority would reconsider that.

GRASSLEY: OK.

Senator Blumenthal?

BLUMENTHAL: Mr. Chairman, I ask if you have sworn statements that you're submitting for the record, that we have those individuals come before us so that we can ask them questions about those statements. I think that the nature of this proceeding would be compromised if we lack an opportunity to ask them questions about sworn statements that will be part of the record. So frankly, Mr. Chairman, I would object to entering them in the record.

WHITEHOUSE: Mr. Chairman?

GRASSLEY: OK, Senator Whitehouse?

WHITEHOUSE: I have a number of letters that I would like to ask submitted to the record that relate to the importance of proper investigation by trained professionals in pulling these kind of - of investigations together, from the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the National Women's Law Center, the National Organization For Women, and so forth.

(CROSSTALK)

GRASSLEY: Without objection. Senator Kennedy?

KENNEDY: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for our chairman. The - the - the statements that Senator Blumenthal talked about, those were statements taken by our majority staff, is that...

GRASSLEY: They're - they're - they're already in the record.

KENNEDY: Yes, sir, but those statements were taken by our majority staff?

GRASSLEY: Yes.

KENNEDY: Did minority staff participate?

GRASSLEY: No.

KENNEDY: Why not?

GRASSLEY: You'll have to ask them.

KENNEDY: Well, were they instructed not to participate?

GRASSLEY: No.

KENNEDY: They chose not to?

GRASSLEY: That's right.

FEINSTEIN: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I was told the minority staff was not notified.

(CROSSTALK)

KENNEDY: If - if - if I could, I still think I have the forum, Senator.

GRASSLEY: Let's listen to Senator Feinstein.

(CORRECTED COPY - CORRECTS SPEAKER IDENTIFICATION)

BROMWICH: Can - can we be excused?

FEINSTEIN: I am told by staff...

(CORRECTED COPY - CORRECTS SPEAKER IDENTIFICATION)

BROMWICH: The witness is quite tired. She'd like to be excused.

GRASSLEY: I'd would like - I'd like to - if you'd wait just a minute, I'd like to thank Dr. Ford.

(CORRECTED COPY - CORRECTS SPEAKER IDENTIFICATION)

BROMWICH: OK. All right.

GRASSLEY: In fact, we're going to continue this meeting, and we can - so let's just be nice to her.

(LAUGHTER)

Dr. Ford, Dr. Ford, I - I can only speak as one of 21 senators here, but I thank you very much for your testimony, more importantly, for your bravery coming out, and trying to answer our questions as best you could remember. Thank you very much. We'll adjourn for 45 minutes - or, not adjourn. Recess for 45 minutes.

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF BRETT M.
KAVANAUGH TO BE AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT, DAY 5,
FOCUSING ON ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT, PART 2

SEPTEMBER 27, 2018

SPEAKERS:
SEN. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, R-IOWA, CHAIRMAN

SEN. ORRIN G. HATCH, R-UTAH

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-S.C.

SEN. JOHN CORNYN, R-TEXAS

SEN. MIKE LEE, R-UTAH

SEN. TED CRUZ, R-TEXAS

SEN. JEFF FLAKE, R-ARIZ.

SEN. THOM TILLIS, R-N.C.

SEN. BEN SASSE, R-NEB.

SEN. MICHAEL D. CRAPO, R-IDAHO

SEN. JOHN KENNEDY, R-LA.

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, D-CALIF., RANKING MEMBER

SEN. PATRICK J. LEAHY, D-VT.

SEN. RICHARD J. DURBIN, D-ILL.

SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, D-R.I.

SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR, D-MINN.

SEN. CHRIS COONS, D-DEL.

SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, D-CONN.

SEN. MAZIE K. HIRONO, D-HAWAII

SEN. CORY BOOKER, D-N.J.

SEN. KAMALA HARRIS, D-CALIF.

RACHEL MITCHELL, STAFF COUNSEL

WITNESSES:
JUDGE BRETT M. KAVANAUGH, NOMINATED TO BE AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF
THE SUPREME COURT

[*]
GRASSLEY: Judge Kavanaugh, we welcome you. Are you ready?

KAVANAUGH: I am.

GRASSLEY: I have a - I have a - 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 statements of three witnesses Dr. Ford said were also at the party. These statements were provided to us under penalty of felony by lying to - if you lie to Congress. As soon as my team learned the names of these three potential witnesses, we immediately reached out to them, 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've invited the minority to join. Every time that we've received any information regarding Judge Kavanaugh, we've sought to immediately follow through and investigate. The minority staff sat on Dr. Ford's letter for weeks, and staff told us that they believed it is, quote, "highly inappropriate to have these follow-up calls before the FBI finishes its investigation," end of quote, even though the FBI had completed its background information.

When we followed up with Judge Kavanaugh after we received Dr. Ford's allegations, the ranking member's staff didn't join us, even though these calls are usually done on a bipartisan basis. They joined other calls with the judge, but they didn't participate or ask any questions.

Would you please rise, sir?

KAVANAUGH: Yes.

GRASSLEY: Do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

KAVANAUGH: I do.

GRASSLEY: Yeah. And like we - like we offered to senator - or, to Dr. Ford, you can take whatever time you want now for your opening statement, and then we'll go to questions. So proceed.

KAVANAUGH: Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Feinstein, members of the committee, thank you for allowing me to make my statement. I wrote it myself yesterday afternoon and evening. No one has seen a draft, or it, except for one of my former law clerks. This is my statement.

Less than two weeks ago, Dr. Ford publicly accused me of committing wrongdoing at an event more than 36 years ago when we were both in high school. I denied the allegation immediately, categorically and unequivocally. All four people allegedly at the event, including Dr. Ford's longtime friend, Ms. Keyser, have said they recall no such event. Her longtime friend, Ms. Keyser, said under penalty of felony that she does not know me, and does not believe she ever saw me at a party, ever.

Here is the quote from Ms. Keyser's attorney's letter: quote, "Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh, and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with or without Dr. Ford," end quote. Think about that fact.

The day after the allegation appeared, I told this committee that I wanted a hearing as soon as possible to clear my name. I demanded a hearing for the very next day. Unfortunately, it took the committee 10 days to get to this hearing. In those 10 long days, as was predictable, and as I predicted, my family and my name have been totally and permanently destroyed by vicious and false additional accusations. The 10-day delay has been harmful to me and my family, to the Supreme Court and to the country.

When this allegation first arose, I welcomed any kind of investigation, Senate, FBI or otherwise. The committee now has conducted a thorough investigation, and I've cooperated fully. I know that any kind of investigation - Senate, FBI, Montgomery County Police - whatever, will clear me. Listen to the people I know. Listen to the people who've known me my whole life. Listen to the people I've grown up with, and worked with, and played with, and coached with, and dated, and taught, and gone to games with, and had beers with. And listen to the witnesses who allegedly were at this event 36 years ago. Listen to Ms. Keyser. She does not know me. I was not at the party described by Dr. Ford.

This confirmation process has become a national disgrace. The Constitution gives the Senate an important role in the confirmation process, but you have replaced advice and consent with search and destroy.

Since my nomination in July, there's been a frenzy on the left to come up with something, anything to block my confirmation. Shortly after I was nominated, the Democratic Senate leader said he would, quote, "oppose me with everything he's got." A Democratic senator on this committee publicly - publicly referred to me as evil - evil. Think about that word. It's said that those who supported me were, quote, "complicit in evil." Another Democratic senator on this committee said, quote, "Judge Kavanaugh is your worst nightmare." A former head of the Democratic National Committee said, quote, "Judge Kavanaugh will threaten the lives of millions of Americans for decades to come."

I understand the passions of the moment, but I would say to those senators, your words have meaning. Millions of Americans listen carefully to you. Given comments like those, is it any surprise that people have been willing to do anything to make any physical threat against my family, to send any violent e-mail to my wife, to make any kind of allegation against me and against my friends. To blow me up and take me down.

You sowed the wind for decades to come. I fear that the whole country will reap the whirlwind.

The behavior of several of the Democratic members of this committee at my hearing a few weeks ago was an embarrassment. But at least it was just a good old-fashioned attempt at Borking.

Those efforts didn't work. When I did at least OK enough at the hearings that it looked like I might actually get confirmed, a new tactic was needed.

Some of you were lying in wait and had it ready. This first allegation was held in secret for weeks by a Democratic member of this committee, and by staff. It would be needed only if you couldn't take me out on the merits.

When it was needed, this allegation was unleashed and publicly deployed over Dr. Ford's wishes. And then - and then as no doubt was expected - if not planned - came a long series of false last-minute smears designed to scare me and drive me out of the process before any hearing occurred.

Crazy stuff. Gangs, illegitimate children, fights on boats in Rhode Island. All nonsense, reported breathlessly and often uncritically by the media.

This has destroyed my family and my good name. A good name built up through decades of very hard work and public service at the highest levels of the American government.

This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election. Fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record. Revenge on behalf of the Clintons. and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups.

This is a circus. The consequences will extend long past my nomination. The consequences will be with us for decades. This grotesque and coordinated character assassination will dissuade competent and good people of all political persuasions, from serving our country.

And as we all know, in the United States political system of the early 2000s, what goes around comes around. I am an optimistic guy. I always try to be on the sunrise side of the mountain, to be optimistic about the day that is coming.

But today, I have to say that I fear for the future. Last time I was here, I told this committee that a federal judge must be independent, not swayed by public or political pressure.

I said I was such a judge, and I am. I will not be intimidated into withdrawing from this process. You've tried hard. You've given it your all. No one can question your effort, but your coordinated and well-funded effort to destroy my good name and to destroy my family will not drive me out. The vile threats of violence against my family will not drive me out.

You may defeat me in the final vote, but you'll never get me to quit. Never.

I'm here today to tell the truth. I've never sexually assaulted anyone. Not in high school, not in college, not ever. Sexual assault is horrific. One of my closest friends to this day is a woman who was sexually abused and who, in the 1990s when we were in our 30s, confided in me about the abuse and sought my advice. I was one of the only people she consulted.

Allegations of sexual assault must always be taken seriously, always. Those who make allegations always deserve to be heard.

At the same time, the person who was the subject of the allegations also deserves to be heard. Due process is a foundation of the American rule of law. Due process means listening to both sides.

As I told you at my hearing three weeks ago, I'm the only child of Martha and Ed Kavanaugh. They're here today. When I was 10, my mom went to law school. And as a lawyer, she worked hard and overcame barriers, including the workplace sexual harassment that so many women faced (ph) at that time and still face today.

She became a trailblazer, one of Maryland's earliest women prosecutors and trial judges. She and my dad taught me the importance of equality and respect for all people, and she inspired me to be a lawyer and a judge.

Last time I was here, I told you that when my mom was a prosecutor and I was in high school, she used to practice her closing arguments at the dining room table, on my dad and me.

As I told you, her trademark line was, "Use your common sense. What rings true? What rings false?" Her trademark line is a good reminder, as we sit here today, some 36 years after the alleged event occurred when there is no corroboration and indeed it is refuted by the people allegedly there.

After I've been in the public arena for 26 years without even a hint - a whiff - of an allegation like this. And when my nomination to the Supreme Court was just about to be voted on, at a time when I'm called "evil" by a Democratic member of this committee, while Democratic opponents of my nomination say people will die if I am confirmed.

This onslaught of last-minute allegations does not ring true. I'm not questioning that Dr. Ford may have been sexually assaulted by some person in some place at some time. But I have never done this. To her or to anyone. That's not who I am. It is not who I was. I am innocent of this charge.

I intend no ill will to Dr. Ford and her family. The other night, Ashley and my daughter, Liza, said their prayers. And little Liza - all of 10 years old - said to Ashley, "We should pray for the woman." It's a lot of wisdom from a 10-year old. We mean - we mean no ill will.

First, let's start with my career. For the last 26 years, since 1992, I have served in many high profile and sensitive government positions for which the FBI has investigated my background six separate times. Six separate FBI background investigations over 26 years. All of them after the elent (ph) - event alleged here. I have been in the public arena and under extreme public scrutiny for decades.

In 1992, I worked for the Office of Solicitor General in the Department of Justice. In 1993, I clerked on the Supreme Court for Justice Anthony Kennedy. I spent 4 years at the Independent Counsel's office during the 1990s. That office was the subject of enormous scrutiny from the media and the public. During 1998, the year of the impeachment of President Clinton, our office generally and I personally were in the middle of an intense national media and political spotlight.

I and other leading members of Ken Starr's office were opposition researched from head to toe, from birth through the present day. Recall the people who were exposed that year of 1998 as having in engaged in some sexual wrongdoing or indiscretions in their pasts. One person on the left even paid a million dollars for people to report evidence of sexual wrongdoing, and it worked. Exposed some prominent people. Nothing about me.

From 2001 to 2006, I worked for President George W. Bush in the White House. As Staff Secretary, I was by President Bush's side for 3 years and was entrusted with the nation's most sensitive secrets. I traveled on Air Force One all over the country and the world with President Bush. I went everywhere with him, from Texas to Pakistan, from Alaska to Australia, from Buckingham Palace to the Vatican. Three years in the West Wing, 5 1/2 years in the White House.

I was then nominated to be a judge on the D.C. Circuit. I was thoroughly vetted by the White House, the FBI, the American Bar Association, and this committee. I sat before this committee for two thorough confirmation hearings in 2004 and 2006.

For the past 12 years leading up to my nomination for this job, I've served in a very public arena as a federal judge on what is often referred to as the second-most important court in the country. I've handled some of the most significant sensitive cases affecting the lives and liberties of the American people.

I have been a good judge. And for this nomination, another FBI background investigation, another American Bar Association investigation, 31 hours of hearings, 65 senator meetings, 1,200 written questions, more than all previous Supreme Court nominees combined.

Throughout that entire time, throughout my 53 years and 7 months on this Earth, until last week, no one ever accused me of any kind of sexual misconduct. No one, ever. A lifetime. A lifetime of public service and a lifetime of high-profile public service at the highest levels of American government and never a hint of anything of this kind, and that's because nothing of this kind ever happened.

Second, let's turn to specifics. I categorically and unequivocally deny the allegation against me by Dr. Ford. I never had any sexual or physical encounter of any kind with Dr. Ford. I never attended a gathering like the one Dr. Ford describes in her allegation. I've never sexually assaulted Dr. Ford or anyone.

Again, I am not questioning that Dr. Ford may have been sexually assaulted by some person in some place at some time. But I have never done that to her or to anyone.

Dr. Ford's allegation stems from a party that she alleges occurred during the summer of 1982, 36 years ago. I was 17 years old, between my junior and senior years of high school at Georgetown Prep, a rigorous all-boys Catholic Jesuit High School in Rockville, Maryland. When my friends and I spent time together at parties on weekends, it was usually the - with friends from nearby Catholic all-girls high schools, Stone Ridge, Holy Child, Visitation, Immaculata, Holy Cross.

Dr. Ford did not attend one of those schools. She attended an independent private school named Holton-Arms and she was a year behind me. She and I did not travel in the same social circles. It is possible that we met at some point at some events, although I do not recall that. To repeat, all of the people identified by Dr. Ford as being present at the party have said they do not remember any such party ever happening.

Importantly her friend, Ms. Keyser, has not only denied knowledge of the party, Ms. Keyser said under penalty of felony she does not know me, does not recall ever being at a party with me ever. And my two male friends who were allegedly there, who knew me well, have told this committee under penalty of felony that they do not recall any such party and that I never did or would do anything like this.

Dr. Ford's allegation is not merely uncorroborated, it is refuted by the very people she says were there, including by a long-time friend of hers. Refuted.

Third, Dr. Ford has said that this event occurred at a house near Columbia Country Club, which is at the corner of Connecticut Avenue in the East-West Highway in Chevy Chase, Maryland. In her letter to Senator Feinstein, she said that there were four other people at the house but none of those people, nor I, lived near Columbia Country Club.

As of the summer of 1982, Dr. Ford was 15 and could not drive yet and she did not live near Columbia Country Club. She says confidently that she had one beer at the party, but she does not say how she got to the house in question or how she got home or whose house it was.

Fourth, I have submitted to this committee detailed calendars recording my activities in the summer of 1982. Why did I keep calendars? My dad started keeping detailed calendars of his life in 1978. He did so as both a calendar and a diary. He was a very organized guy, to put it mildly. Christmas time, we'd sit around and he regales us with old stories, old milestones, old weddings, old events from his calendars.

In ninth grade - in ninth grade, in 1980, I started keeping calendars of my own. For me, also, it's both a calendar and a diary. I've kept such calendar as diaries for the last 38 years; mine are not as good as my dad's in some years. And when I was a kid, the calendars are about what you would expect from a kid; some goofy parts, some embarrassing parts.

But I did have the summer of 1982 documented pretty well. The event described by Dr. Ford, presumably happened on a weekend because I believed everyone worked and had jobs in the summers. And in any event, a drunken early evening event of the kind she describes, presumably happened on a weekend.

If it was a weekend, my calendars show that I was out of town almost every weekend night before football training camp started in late August. The only weekend nights that I was in D.C. were Friday, June 4, when I was with my dad at a pro golf tournament and had my high school achievement test at 8:30 the next morning.

I also was in D.C. on Saturday night, August 7th. But I was at a small gathering at Becky's house in Rockville with Matt, Denise, Laurie and Jenny. Their names are all listed on my calendar. I won't use their last names here.

And then on the weekend of August 20 to 22nd, I was staying at the Garrets' (ph) with Pat (ph) and Chris (ph) as we did final preparations for football training camp that began on Sunday, the 22nd. As the calendars' confirm, the - that weekend before a brutal training camp schedule was no time for parities.

So let me emphasize this point. If the party described by Dr. Ford happened in the summer of 1982 on a weekend night, my calendar shows all but definitively that I was not there.

During the weekdays in the summer of 1982, as you can see, I was out of town for two weeks of the summer for a trip to the beach with friends and at the legendary Five-Star Basketball Camp in Honesdale, Pennsylvania. When I was in town, I spent much of my time working, working out, lifting weights, playing basketball, or hanging out and having some beers with friends as we talked about life, and football, and school and girls.

Some have noticed that I didn't have church on Sundays on my calendars. I also didn't list brushing my teeth. And for me, going to church on Sundays was like brushing my teeth, automatic. It still is.

In the summer of 1981, I had worked construction. In the summer of 1982, my job was cutting lawns. I had my own business of sorts. You see some specifics about the lawn cutting listed on the August calendar page, when I had to time the last lawn cuttings of the summer of various lawns before football training camp.

I played in a lot of summer league basketball games for the Georgetown Prep team at night at Blair High School in Silver Spring. Many nights, I worked out with other guys at Tobin's house. He was the great quarterback on our football team and his dad ran workouts - or lifted weights at Georgetown Prep in preparation for the football season. I attended and watched many sporting events, as is my habit to this day.

The calendars show a few weekday gatherings at friends' houses after a workout or just to meet up and have some beers. But none of those gatherings included the group of people that Dr. Ford has identified. And as my calendars show, I was very precise about listing who was there; very precise.

And keeping - keep in mind, my calendars also were diaries of sorts, forward-looking and backward-looking, just like my dad's. You can see, for example, that I crossed out missed workouts and the canceled doctor's appointments, and that I listed the precise people who had shown up for certain events. The calendars are obviously not dispositive on their own, but they are another piece of evidence for you to consider.

Fifth, Dr. Ford's allegation is radically inconsistent with my record and my character from my youth to the present day. As students at an all-boys catholic Jesuit school, many of us became friends and remain friends to this day with students at local catholic all-girls schools.

One feature of my life that has remained true to the present day is that I have always had a lot of close female friends. I'm not talking about girlfriends; I'm talking about friends who are women. That started in high school. Maybe it was because I'm an only child and had no sisters.

But anyway, we had no social media, or texts, or e-mail and we talked on the phone. I remember talking almost every night it seemed, to my friends Amy, or Julie, or Kristin, or Karen, or Suzanne, or Moira, or Megan, or Nikki (ph). The list goes on - friends for a lifetime, built on a foundation of talking through school and life, starting at age 14. Several of those great women are in the seats right behind me today.

My friends and I sometimes got together and had parties on weekends. The drinking age was 18 in Maryland for most of my time in high school, and was 18 in D.C. for all of my time in high school. I drank beer with my friends. Almost everyone did. Sometimes I had too many beers. Sometimes others did. I liked beer. I still like beer. But I did not drink beer to the point of blacking out, and I never sexually assaulted anyone.

There is a bright line between drinking beer, which I gladly do, and which I fully embrace, and sexually assaulting someone, which is a violent crime. If every American who drinks beer or every American who drank beer in high school is suddenly presumed guilty of sexual assault, will be an ugly, new place in this country. I never committed sexual assault.

As high school students, we sometimes did goofy or stupid things. I doubt we are alone in looking back in high school and cringing at some things.

For one thing, our yearbook was a disaster. I think some editors and students wanted the yearbook to be some combination of Animal House, Caddy Shack and Fast Times at Ridgemont High, which were all recent movies at that time. Many of us went along in the yearbook to the point of absurdity. This past week, my friends and I have cringed when we read about it and talked to each other.

One thing in particular we're sad about: one of our good - one of our good female friends who we would admire and went to dances with had her names used on the yearbook page with the term "alumnus." That yearbook reference was clumsily intended to show affection, and that she was one of us. But in this circus, the media's interpreted the term is related to sex. It was not related to sex. As the woman herself noted to the media on the record, she and I never had any six - sexual interaction of - at all. I'm so sorry to her for that yearbook reference. This may sound a bit trivial, given all that we are here for, but one thing I want to try to make sure - sure of in the future is my friendship with her. She was and is a great person.

As to sex, this is not a topic I ever imagined would come up at a judicial confirmation hearing, but I want to give you a full picture of who I was. I never had sexual intercourse, or anything close to it, during high school, or for many years after that. In some crowds, I was probably a little outwardly shy about my inexperience; tried to hide that. At the same time, I was also inwardly proud of it. For me and the girls who I was friends with, that lack of major rampant sexual activity in high school was a matter of faith and respect and caution.

The committee has a letter from 65 women who knew me in high school. They said that I always treated them with dignity and respect. That letter came together in one night, 35 years after graduation, while a sexual assault allegation was pending against me in a very fraught (ph) and public situation where they knew - they knew they'd be vilified if they defended me. Think about that. They put theirselves (sic) on the line for me. Those are some awesome women, and I love all of them.

You also have a letter from women who knew me in college. Most were varsity athletes, and they described that I treated them as friends and equals, and supported them in their sports at a time when women's sports was emerging in the wake of Title IX. I thank all of them for all of their texts, and their emails, and their support. One of those women friends from college, a self-described liberal and feminist, sent me a text last night that said, quote, "Deep breaths. You're a good man, a good man, a good man."

A text yesterday from another of those women friends from college said, quote, "Brett, be strong. Pulling for you to my core." A third text yesterday from yet another of those women I'm friends with from college said, "I'm holding you in the light of God."

As I said in my opening statement the last time I was with you, cherish your friends, look out for your friends, lift up your friends, love your friends. I've felt that love more over the last two weeks than I ever have in my life. I thank all my friends. I love all my friends.

Throughout my life, I've devoted huge efforts to encouraging and promoting the careers of women. I will put my record up against anyone's, male or female. I am proud of the letter from 84 women - 84 women - who worked with me at the Bush White House from 2001 to 2006, and described me as, quote, "a man of the highest integrity."

Read the op-ed from Sarah Day (ph) from Yarmouth, Maine. She worked in Oval Office operations, outside of President Bush's office. Here's what she recently wrote in centralmaine.com, and today she stands by her comments.

Quote, "Brett was an advocate for young women like me. He encouraged me to take on more responsibility and to feel confident in my role. In fact, during the 2004 Republican National Convention, Brett gave me the opportunity to help with the preparation and review of the president's remarks, something I never (ph)...

... "something I never would have had the chance to do if he had not included me. And he didn't just include me in the work. He made sure I was at Madison Square Garden to watch the president's speech, instead of back at the hotel, watching it on TV." End quote.

As a judge since 2006, I've had the privilege of hiring four recent law school graduates to serve as my law clerks each year. The law clerks for federal judges are the best and brightest graduates of American law schools. They work for one-year terms for judges after law school, and then they move on in their careers.

For judges, training these young lawyers is an important responsibility. The clerks will become the next generation of American lawyers and leaders, judges and senators.

Just after I took the bench in 2006, there was a major New York Times story about the low numbers of women law clerks at the Supreme Court and federal appeals courts.

I took notice, and I took action. A majority of my 48 law clerks over the last 12 years have been women.

In a letter to this committee, my women law clerks said I was one of the strongest advocates in the federal judiciary for women lawyers. And they wrote that the legal profession is fairer and more equal because of me.

In my time on the bench, no federal judge - not a single one in the country - has sent more women law clerks to clerk on the Supreme Court than I have.

Before this allegation arose two weeks ago, I was required to start making certain administrative preparations for my possible transfer to the Supreme Court, just in case I was confirmed.

As part of that, I had to, in essence, contingently hire a first group of four law clerks who could be available to clerk at the Supreme Court for me on a moment's notice.

I did so, and contingently hired four law clerks. All four are women. If confirmed, I'll be the first justice in the history of the Supreme Court to have a group of all-women law clerks.

That is who I am. That is who I was. Over the past 12 years, I've taught constitutional law to hundreds of students, primarily at Harvard Law School, where (ph) I was hired by then-dean and now-Justice Elena Kagan.

One of my former women students, a Democrat, testified to this committee that I was an even-handed professor who treats people fairly and with respect.

In a letter to this committee, my former students - male and female alike - wrote that I displayed "a character that impressed us all." I loved teaching law. But thanks to what some of you on this side of the committee have unleashed, I may never be able to teach again.

For the past seven years, I've coached my two daughters' basketball teams. You saw many of those girls when they came to my hearing for a couple of hours. You have a letter from the parents of the girls I coach, that describe my dedication, commitment and character.

I coach because I know that a girl's confidence on the basketball court translates into confidence in other aspects of life. I love coaching more than anything I've ever done in my whole life. But thanks to what some of you on this side of the committee have unleashed, I may never be able to coach again.

I've been a judge for 12 years. I have a long record of service to America and to the Constitution. I revere the Constitution. I am deeply grateful to President Trump for nominating me. He was so gracious to my family and me on the July night he announced my nomination at the White House. I thank him for his steadfast support.

When I accepted the president's nomination, Ashley and I knew this process would be challenging. We never expected that it would devolve into this. Explaining this to our daughters has been about the worst experience of our lives.

Ashley has been a rock. I thank God every day for Ashley and my family. We live in a country devoted to due process and the rule of law. That means taking allegations seriously.

But if the mere allegation - the mere assertion of an allegation - a refuted allegation from 36 years ago is enough to destroy a person's life and career, we will have abandoned the basic principles of fairness and due process that define our legal system and our country.

I ask you to judge me by the standard that you would want applied to your father, your husband, your brother or your son. My family and I intend no ill will toward Dr. Ford or her family.

But I swear today - under oath, before the Senate and the nation; before my family and God - I am innocent of this charge.

GRASSLEY: Thank you, Judge Kavanaugh.

Before we start questions, I won't repeat what I said this morning but we'll do it the same way as we did for Dr. Ford. And five-minute rounds. And so we will start with Ms. Mitchell.

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...

KAVANAUGH: Yes, I'm ready.

MITCHELL: OK. If I ask a question...

KAVANAUGH: Thank you.

MITCHELL: 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'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.

Now, I want to make sure that all of the committee members have gotten a copy of the definition of sexual behavior.

GRASSLEY: Yes, at least I have one.

MITCHELL: OK.

GRASSLEY: Yeah.

MITCHELL: And you have that, as well, Judge Kavanaugh?

KAVANAUGH: Yeah.

MITCHELL: OK. First of all, have you been given or reviewed a copy of the questions that I will be asking you?

KAVANAUGH: No.

MITCHELL: Has anyone told you the questions that I will be asking you?

KAVANAUGH: No.

MITCHELL: I want you to take a moment to review the definition that's before you of sexual behavior.

MITCHELL: Have you had a chance to review it?

KAVANAUGH: I have. I may refer back to it, if I can?

MITCHELL: Yes, please.

I'd like to point out two specific parts. Among the examples of sexual behavior, it includes rubbing or grinding your genitals against somebody, clothed or unclothed. And I would also point out that the definition applies whether or not the acts were sexually motivated or, for example, horseplay. Do you understand the definition I have given you?

KAVANAUGH: I do.

MITCHELL: And again, if at any time you need to review that, please - please let me know.

Dr. Ford has stated that somewhere between five or six people were present at the gathering on this date: you, Mark Judge, Leland Ingham - at the time, or Leland Keyser now, Patrick P.J. Smyth, Dr. Ford and - and an unnamed boy. Do you know Mark Judge?

KAVANAUGH: I do.

MITCHELL: How do you know him?

KAVANAUGH: He was a friend at Georgetown Prep, starting in ninth grade. He's a - someone we would - in our, you know, group of friends. We're a very friendly group in class. He saw the letter that's been sent by my friends from Georgetown Prep. Funny guy, great writer, popular, developed a serious addiction problem that lasted decades. Near death a couple times from his addiction. Suffered tremendously from.

MITCHELL: What is your relationship with him like now?

KAVANAUGH: I haven't talked to him in a couple years. We've probably been on, you know, mass e-mails that - or, group e-mails that go around among my high school friends.

MITCHELL: And how did you know Patrick Smyth?

KAVANAUGH: Also ninth grade, Georgetown Prep. Went by P.J. then. He and I lived close to one another. Played football together, he was defensive tackle, I was the quarterback and wide receiver. We carpooled to school along with De Davis (ph) every year, the three of us for two years. I didn't have a car, so one of the two of them would drive every day. And I'd be in the (ph), you know, they'd pick me up.

MITCHELL: What's your relationship like with him now?

KAVANAUGH: He lives in the area. I see him once in a while. I haven't seen him since this - this thing.

MITCHELL: OK. Do you know Leland Ingham or Leland Keyser?

KAVANAUGH: I - I know of her. And it - it's possible I, you know, saw - met her in high school at some point at some event. Yes, I know - I know of her and, again, I don't want to rule out having crossed paths with her in high school.

MITCHELL: Similar to your statements about knowing Dr. Ford?

KAVANAUGH: Correct.

MITCHELL: OK.

GRASSLEY: Senator Feinstein.

FEINSTEIN: Judge Kavanaugh, it's my understanding that you have denied the allegations by Dr. Ford, Ms. Ramirez and Ms. Swetnick. Is that correct?

KAVANAUGH: Yes.

FEINSTEIN: All three of these women have asked the FBI to investigate their claims. I listened carefully to what you said. Your concern is evident and clear. And if you're very confident of your position, and you appear to be, why aren't you also asking the FBI to investigate these claims?

KAVANAUGH: Senator, I'll do whatever the committee wants. I wanted a hearing the day after the allegation came up. I wanted to be here that day. Instead, 10 days passed where all this nonsense is coming out, you know, that I'm in gangs, I'm on boats in Rhode Island, I'm in Colorado, you know, I'm sighted (ph) all over the place. And these things are printed and run, breathlessly (ph) by cable news.

You know, I wanted a hearing the next day. I - my family's been destroyed by this, senator, destroyed.

FEINSTEIN: And - and I'm - and I'm very (ph)...

KAVANAUGH: And - and whoever wants - you know whatever the committee decides, you know, I'm - I'm - I'm all in.

FEINSTEIN: ... But the question is...

KAVANAUGH: Immediately. I'm all in immediately.

FEINSTEIN: ... No (ph). And the terrible and hard part of this is when we get an allegation, we're not in a position to prove it or disprove it; therefore, we have to depend on some outside authority for it. And it would just seem to me, then, when these allegations came forward, that you would want the FBI to investigate those claims and clear it up once and for all.

KAVANAUGH: Senator, the committee investigates. It's not for me to - to say how to do it. But just so you know, the FBI doesn't reach a conclusion. They would give you a couple 302s that just tell you what we said.

So I'm here. I wanted to be here - I wanted to be here the next day. It's an - it's an outrage that I was not allowed to come and immediately defend my name, and say I didn't do this, and give you all this evidence. I'm not even - I'm not even in D.C. on the weekends in the summer of 1982.

This happened on a weekday? Well, is (ph) it - when - when I'm not at a Blair High School for a summer league game, I'm not at Tobin's house working out, I'm not at a movie with Suzanne? You know, I wanted to be here right away.

FEINSTEIN: Well, the difficult thing is that it - the - these hearings are set and - set by the majority. But I'm talking about getting the evidence and having the evidence looked at. And I don't understand - you know, we hear from the witnesses. But the FBI isn't interviewing them and isn't giving us any facts. So all we have...

KAVANAUGH: You're interviewing me.

FEINSTEIN: ... is what they say.

KAVANAUGH: You're interviewing me. You're - you're doing it, senator. I'm sorry to interrupt...

FEINSTEIN: Well...

KAVANAUGH: ... but you're doing it. That's - the - the - there's no conclusions reached.

FEINSTEIN: ... And - and what you're saying, if - if I understand it, is that the allegations by Dr. Ford, Ms. Ramirez and Ms. Swetnick are - are wrong?

KAVANAUGH: Yes, that - that is emphatically what I'm saying; emphatically. The Swetnick thing is a joke. That is a farce.

FEINSTEIN: Would you like to say more about it?

KAVANAUGH: No.

FEINSTEIN: OK.

(LAUGHTER)

FEINSTEIN: OK. That's it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

GRASSLEY: OK. Ms. Mitchell.

MITCHELL: Dr. Ford has described you as being intoxicated at a party. Did you consume alcohol during your high school years?

KAVANAUGH: 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, as I noted, 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.

MITCHELL: What do you...

KAVANAUGH: We drank beer. We liked beer.

MITCHELL: What do you consider to be too many beers?

KAVANAUGH: I don't know. You know, we - whatever the chart says, a blood-alcohol chart.

MITCHELL: 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?

KAVANAUGH: Sure.

MITCHELL: OK. Have you ever passed out from drinking?

KAVANAUGH: I - passed out would be - no, but I've gone to sleep, but - but I've never blacked out. That's the - that's the - the allegation, and that - that - that's wrong.

MITCHELL: So let's talk about your time in high school. In high school, after drinking, did you ever wake up in a different location than you remembered passing out or going to sleep?

KAVANAUGH: No, no.

MITCHELL: Did you ever wake up with your clothes in a different condition, or fewer clothes on than you remembered when you went to sleep or passed out?

KAVANAUGH: No, no.

MITCHELL: Did you ever tell - did anyone ever tell you about something that happened in your presence that you didn't remember during a time that you had been drinking?

KAVANAUGH: No, the - the - we drank beer, and you know, so - so did, I think, the vast majority of - of people our age at the time. But in any event, we drank beer, and - and still do. So whatever, you know.

MITCHELL: During the time in high school when you would be drinking, did anyone ever tell you about something that you did not remember?

KAVANAUGH: No.

MITCHELL: Dr. Ford described a small gathering of people at a suburban Maryland home in the summer of 1982. She said that Mark Judge, P.J. Smyth and Leland Ingham also were present, as well as an unknown male, and that the people were drinking to varying degrees. Were you ever at a gathering that fits that description?

KAVANAUGH: No, as I've said in my opening statements - opening statement.

MITCHELL: Dr. Ford described an incident where she was alone in a room with you and Mark Judge. Have you ever been alone in a room with Dr. Ford and Mark Judge?

KAVANAUGH: No.

MITCHELL: Dr. Ford described an incident where you were grinding your genitals on her. Have you ever ground or rubbed your genitals against Dr. Ford?

KAVANAUGH: No.

MITCHELL: Dr. Ford described an incident where you covered her mouth with your hand. Have you ever covered Dr. Ford's mouth with your hand?

KAVANAUGH: No.

MITCHELL: Dr. Ford described an incident where you tried to remove her clothes. Have you ever tried to remove her clothes?

KAVANAUGH: No.

MITCHELL: Referring back to the definition of sexual behavior that I have given you, have you ever, at any time, engaged in sexual behavior with Dr. Ford?

KAVANAUGH: No.

MITCHELL: Have you ever engaged in sexual behavior with Dr. Ford, even if it was consensual?

KAVANAUGH: No.

MITCHELL: I want to talk about your calendars. You submitted to the committee copies of the handwritten calendars that you've talked about for the months of May, June, July and August of 1982. Do you have them in front of you?

KAVANAUGH: I do.

MITCHELL: Did you create these calendars, in the sense of all the handwriting that's on them?

KAVANAUGH: Yes.

MITCHELL: OK. Is it exclusively your handwriting?

KAVANAUGH: Yes.

MITCHELL: When did you make these entries?

KAVANAUGH: In nine - in 1982.

MITCHELL: Has anything changed - been changed for those since 1982?

KAVANAUGH: No.

MITCHELL: Do these calendars represent your plans for each day, or do they document - in other words, prospectively, or do they document what actually occurred, more like a diary?

KAVANAUGH: They're both forward-looking and backward-looking, as you can tell by looking at them, because I cross out certain doctor's appointments that didn't happen, or one night where I was supposed to lift weights, I crossed that out, because it - I obviously didn't make it that night. So you can see things that I didn't do crossed out in retrospect, and also, when I list the specific people who I was with, that is likely backward-looking.

MITCHELL: You explain that you kept these calendars because your father started keeping them in 1978, I believe you said. That's why you kept them. In other words, you wrote on them. But why did you keep them up until this time?

KAVANAUGH: Well - well, he's kept them, too, since 1978, so he's a good role model.

GRASSLEY: Ms. Mitchell, you'll have to stop.

MITCHELL: Oh, I'm sorry.

GRASSLEY: Judge Kavanaugh has asked for a break, so we'll take a 15-minute break.

(RECESS)

GRASSLEY: Just waiting for you, Diane.

FEINSTEIN: Sorry.

GRASSLEY: Don't - don't apologize, you...

(CROSSTALK)

GRASSLEY: Senator Leahy?

LEAHY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Judge, you said before, and again today, that Mark Judge was a close friend of yours in high school. Now Dr. Ford, as you know, has said that he was in the room when she was attacked. She also says you were, too.

Unfortunate (ph) that (ph) the FBI has never interviewed him. We might (ph) be able to have his attendance here. The chairman refuses to call him.

If she's saying Mark Judge was in the room then, then he should be in the room here today. Would you want him called as a witness?

KAVANAUGH: Senator, this allegation came into the committee...

LEAHY: No, I'm just asking the question. Would you want him to be here as a witness?

KAVANAUGH: He's - he's already provided sworn testimony to the committee. This allegation's been hidden by the committee...

LEAHY: Now, well (ph)...

(CROSSTALK)

KAVANAUGH: ... by - by members of the...

LEAHY: ... it hasn't been - it has not been investigated by the FBI. The committee has refused to allow it to be.

KAVANAUGH: It was dropped on (ph)...

(CROSSTALK)

KAVANAUGH: ... it was sprung.

LEAHY: It was not investigated by the FBI, and he has not been called where he might be under oath.

KAVANAUGH: Should have been handled in the due course, Senator.

(CROSSTALK)

KAVANAUGH: When he came in.

LEAHY: I would - I would disagree with that. I've been on this committee 44 years, both Republicans and Democrats. I've never seen somebody that critical and not allowed to be here to - called to be testified or on (ph) FBI background.

But let me ask...

(CROSSTALK)

KAVANAUGH: You see (ph) he's provided sworn testimony and the...

LEAHY: He has - he has not...

KAVANAUGH: ... Senator - Senator, let me - let me finish. He - the - the allegation came in weeks ago and nothing was done with it by the ranking member.

And then it's sprung on me...

LEAHY: Judge Kavanaugh, I've heard your - your line (ph) and you state it over and over again. And I have that well in mind. But let me ask you this. He authored a book titled, "Wasted: Tales of a Genx Drunk." He references a Barthold (ph) Kavanaugh vomiting on someone's car during Beach Week and then passing out. Is that you that he's talking about?

KAVANAUGH: Senator, Mark Judge was...

LEAHY: To your knowledge, is that you that he's talking about?

KAVANAUGH: I'll explain it if you let me.

LEAHY: Proceed, please.

KAVANAUGH: Mark Judge was a friend of ours in high school who developed a very serious drinking problem, an addiction problem that lasted decades and was very difficult for him to escape from.

And he nearly died. And then developed - then he had leukemia as well, on top of it.

Now, as part of his therapy - or part of his coming to grips with sobriety, he wrote a book that is a fictionalized book and an account....

(CROSSTALK)

KAVANAUGH: I think he picked out names of friends of ours to throw them in as kind of close to what - for characters in the book. So, you know, we can sit here...

LEAHY: So you don't know - you don't know whether that's you or not?

KAVANAUGH: ... we can sit here and you (ph) like (ph), make - make fun of some guy who has an addiction.

LEAHY: I'm not making...

(CROSSTALK)

KAVANAUGH: I don't think that really makes - is really good...

LEAHY: ... Judge Kavanaugh, I'm trying to get a straight answer from you under oath. Are you Bart (ph) Kavanaugh that he's referring to, yes or no? That's it (ph)...

KAVANAUGH: You'd have to ask him.

LEAHY: Well, I agree with you there. And that's why I wish that the chairman had him here under oath.

Now, you've talked about your yearbook. In your yearbook, you talked about drinking and sexual exploits, did you not?

KAVANAUGH: Senator, let me - let me take a step back and explain high school. I was number one in the class...

LEAHY: And I - and I thought (ph)...

KAVANAUGH: ... freshman - no, no, no, no, no.

LEAHY: I thought we were in the Senate (ph)...

KAVANAUGH: You've got this all - I'm going to - I'm going to talk about my high school...

LEAHY: ... the (ph) whole (ph) question (ph).

I thought we were in the Senate (ph) filibuster (ph).

KAVANAUGH: ... no, no.

GRASSLEY: Let him answer.

KAVANAUGH: I'm going to talk about my high school record, if you're going to sit here and mock me.

GRASSLEY: We - we were - I think we were all very fair to Dr. Ford. Shouldn't we be just as fair to Judge Kavanaugh?

(CROSSTALK)

KAVANAUGH: I busted my butt in academics. I always tried to do the best I could. As I recall, I finished one in the class, first in - you know, freshman and junior year, right at the top with Steve (ph) Clark (ph) and Eddie (ph) (inaudible), we were always kind of in the mix.

I - I played sports. I was captain of the varsity basketball team. I was wide receiver and defensive back on the football team. I ran track in the spring of '82 to try to get faster. I did my service projects at the school, which involved going to the soup kitchen downtown - let me finish - and going to tutor intellectually disabled kids at the Rockville Library.

With the church - and, yes, we got together with our friends.

LEAHY: Does this reflect what you are? Does this yearbook reflect your...

KAVANAUGH: I...

LEAHY: ... focus on academics and your respect for women? That's easy. Yes or no. You don't have to filibuster the answer. Does it reflect your focus on academics...

(CROSSTALK)

KAVANAUGH: I already said the yearbook - in my opening statement. The yearbook, obviously...

GRASSLEY: Judge? Just wait a minute. He's asked the question. I'll give you time to answer it.

KAVANAUGH: The - the yearbook, as I said in my opening statement, was something where the students and editors made a decision to treat some of it as farce and some of as exaggeration, some of it celebrating things that don't reflect the things that were really the central part of our school.

Yes, we went to parties, though. Yes, of course, we went to parties and the yearbook page describes that and kind of makes fun of it. And as a - you know, if we want to sit here and talk about whether a Supreme Court nomination should be based on a high school yearbook page, I think that's taken us to a new level of absurdity.

LEAHY: Ms. Mitchell? Well, we got a filibuster but not a single answer.

GRASSLEY: Ms. Mitchell?

MITCHELL: Judge, do you still have your calendar - calendars there?

KAVANAUGH: I do.

MITCHELL: I would like you to look at the July 1st entry.

KAVANAUGH: Yes.

MITCHELL: The entry says - and I quote - "Go to Timmy's (ph) for skis (ph) with Judge (ph), Tom (ph), P.J. (ph), Bernie (ph) and Squee (ph)"?

KAVANAUGH: Squee. That's a nick...

MITCHELL: What does...

KAVANAUGH: ... that's a nickname.

MITCHELL: OK. To what does this refer, and to whom?

KAVANAUGH: So first, says "Tobin's (ph) house workout". So that's one of the football workouts that we would have - that Dr. (inaudible) would run for guys on the football team during the summer.

So we would be there - that's usually 6:00 to 8:00 or so, kind of - until near dark. And then it looks like we went over to Timmy's - you want to know their last names too? I'm happy to do it.

MITCHELL: If you could just identify, is - is "Judge," Mark Judge?

KAVANAUGH: It is.

MITCHELL: And is "P.J.," P.J. Smith?

KAVANAUGH: It is.

So - all right. It's Tim Gaudette (ph), Mark Judge, Tom Caine (ph), P.J. Smith, Bernie McCarthy (ph), Chris Garrett (ph).

MITCHELL: Chris Garrett is Squee?

KAVANAUGH: He is.

MITCHELL: Did you in your calendar routinely document social gatherings like house parties or gatherings of friends in your calendar?

KAVANAUGH: Yes. It - it certainly appears that way, that's what I was doing in the summer of 1982. And you can see that reflected on several of the - several of the entries.

MITCHELL: If a gathering like Dr. Ford has described had occurred, would you have documented that?

KAVANAUGH: Yes, because I documented everything of those kinds of events, even small get-togethers. August 7th is another good example where I documented a small get-together that summer, so yes.

MITCHELL: August 7th. Could you read that?

KAVANAUGH: I think that's go to Becky's, Matt, Denise, Lori, Jenny (ph).

MITCHELL: Have you reviewed every entry that is in these calendars of May, June, July and August of 1982?

KAVANAUGH: I have.

MITCHELL: Is there anything that could even remotely fit what we're talking about, in terms of Dr. Ford's allegations?

KAVANAUGH: No.

MITCHELL: As a lawyer and a judge, are you - we've talked about the FBI. Are you aware that this type of offense would actually be investigated by local police?

KAVANAUGH: Yes, I mentioned Montgomery County Police earlier. Yes.

MITCHELL: OK. Are you aware that in Maryland, there is no statute of limitations that would prohibit you being charged, even if this happened in 1982?

KAVANAUGH: That's my understanding.

MITCHELL: Have you, at any time, been contacted by any members of local police agencies regarding this matter?

KAVANAUGH: No, ma'am.

MITCHELL: Prior to your nomination for Supreme Court, you've talked about all of the female clerks you've had, and the women that you've worked with. I'm not just talking about them; I'm talking about globally. Have you ever been accused, either formally or informally, of unwanted sexual behavior?

KAVANAUGH: No.

MITCHELL: And when I say informally, I mean just a - a female complains. It doesn't have to be to anybody else but you.

KAVANAUGH: No.

MITCHELL: Since Dr. Ford's allegation was made public, how many times have you been interviewed by the committee?

KAVANAUGH: It's - it's been a - three or four. I'm - I'm trying to remember now. It's - it's been several times. Each of these new things, absurd as they are, we'd get on the phone and kind of go through them.

MITCHELL: So have you submitted to interviews specifically about Dr. Ford's allegation?

KAVANAUGH: Yes.

MITCHELL: And what about Deborah Ramirez's allegation...

KAVANAUGH: Yes.

MITCHELL: ... that you waved your penis in front of her?

KAVANAUGH: Yes.

MITCHELL: What about Julie Swetnick's allegation that you repeatedly engaged in drugging and gang-raping, or allowing women to be gang-raped?

KAVANAUGH: Yes. Yes, I've been interviewed about it.

MITCHELL: Were your answers to my questions today consistent with the answers that you gave to the committee in these various interviews?

KAVANAUGH: Yes, ma'am.

MITCHELL: OK. I see I'm out of time.

GRASSLEY: Senator Durbin?

DURBIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Judge Kavanaugh, earlier today, Dr. Christine Ford sat in that same chair, and under oath, she said clearly and unequivocally that she was a victim of sexual assault at your hands. She answered our questions directly, and she didn't flinch at the prospect of submitting herself to an FBI investigation of these charges. We know, and I'm sure she's been advised by her attorneys, that a person lying to the FBI can face criminal prosecution.

You have clearly and unequivocally denied that you assaulted Dr. Ford. With that statement, you must believe that there is no credible evidence or any credible witness that could prove otherwise.

You started off with an impassioned statement at the beginning, and I can imagine, try to imagine what you have been through, and your family's been through, and I'm sure I wouldn't get close to it. But it was an impassioned...

(UNKNOWN): OK. I'm sure you wouldn't.

DURBIN: I'm sure I wouldn't. It's an impassioned statement. And in the course of it, you said, "I welcome any kind of investigation." I quote you. I welcome any kind of investigation. I've got a suggestion for you: right now, turn to your left in the front row to Don McGahn, counsel to President Donald Trump. Ask him to suspend this hearing and nomination process until the FBI completes its investigation of the charges made by Dr. Ford and others, and goes to bring the witnesses forward, and provides that information to this hearing. I am sure that the chairman at that point will understand that that is a reasonable request to finally put to rest these charges, if they are false, or to prove them if they are not.

You spent two years in the White House office that approved judicial nominees. You turned to the FBI over, and over, and over again for their work. Let's bring them in here and now. Turn to Don McGahn, and tell him it's time to get this done. An FBI investigation is the only way to answer some of these questions.

(UNKNOWN): Senator...

GRASSLEY: Stop the - stop the clock.

This committee is - is running this hearing, not the White House, not Don McGahn, not even you as a nominee. We're - we are here today because Dr. Ford asked for an opportunity to hear. I know you did too, as well, in fact, maybe even before she did.

We're here because people wanted to be heard from charges that they all thought were unfair, or activities like sexual assault was unfair. So I want to assure Senator Durbin, regardless of what you say to Senator Don McGahn, we're not suspending this hearing.

Proceed to answer the question, or so whatever - or to - if the gentleman...

DURBIN: I - I'll just say this: If you, Judge Kavanaugh, turned to Don McGahn and to this committee and say, "For the sake of my reputation, my family name, and to get to the bottom of the truth of this, I am not going to stay - be an obstacle to an FBI investigation," I would hope that all the members of the committee would join me in saying, "We're going to abide by your witch - wishes, and we will have that investigation."

KAVANAUGH: I - I welcome whatever the committee wants to do, because I'm telling the truth.

DURBIN: I want to know what you want to do.

KAVANAUGH: I - I'm telling the truth.

DURBIN: I want to know what you want to do, Judge.

KAVANAUGH: I'm innocent. I'm innocent of this charge.

DURBIN: Then you're prepared for an FBI investigator...

KAVANAUGH: They don't reach conclusions. You reach the conclusion, Senator.

DURBIN: No, but they do investigate questions.

KAVANAUGH: I'm - I'm innocent.

DURBIN: And you can't have it both ways, Judge. You can't say here at the beginning...

KAVANAUGH: I wanted a hearing.

DURBIN: (inaudible) your moment.

KAVANAUGH: Look, this thing...

DURBIN: I welcome any kind of investigation, and then walk away from this.

KAVANAUGH: This thing was sprung on me - this thing was sprung at the last minute after being held by staff. You know...

DURBIN: Judge, if there is no truth to...

KAVANAUGH: And I called for a - I called for a hearing immediately.

DURBIN: If there is no truth to her charges, the FBI investigation will show that. Are you afraid that they might not?

GRASSLEY: Come on. Gee, whiz.

KAVANAUGH: The FBI does not reach - you know. You know this is - you know that's a phony question...

DURBIN: Well, here...

KAVANAUGH: ... because the FBI doesn't reach conclusions.

DURBIN: So let's - let's just...

KAVANAUGH: They just provide the 302s. 302s, so I can explain to people who don't know what that is, they just going and do what you're doing: ask questions and then type up a report. They don't reach the bottom line conclusion. You...

DURBIN: This morning - this morning, I asked Dr. Ford, I asked her about this incident where she ran into Mark Judge in Safeway, and she said, "Sure, I remember it." Six or eight weeks after this occurrence.

Well, someone at The Washington Post went in and took a look at Mr. Judge's book and has been able to - the one that he wrote about his addiction and his alcoholism - and they have narrowed it down, what they think was a period of time six or eight weeks after the event. And he would have been working at the Safeway at that point.

So the point I'm getting to is we at least can connect some dots here and get some information. Why would you resist that kind...

KAVANAUGH: Here's some (ph) dots.

DURBIN: ... of investigation? Why would you resist that kind of investigation?

KAVANAUGH: Senator, I - I welcome - I wanted the hearing last week.

DURBIN: I'm asking about the FBI investigation.

KAVANAUGH: They're - the committee figures out how to ask the questions, I'll do whatever. I've been on the phone multiple times with committee counsel. I'll talk to...

DURBIN: Judge Kavanaugh, will you support an FBI investigation...

KAVANAUGH: ... I'll do - I'll...

DURBIN: ... right now?

KAVANAUGH: ... I - I will do whatever the committee wants to...

DURBIN: Personally, do you think that's the best thing for us to do? You won't answer?

KAVANAUGH: ... Look, senator, I - I've - I've - I've said I wanted a hearing and I'd said I was welcome (ph) anything. I'm innocent. This thing was held - held when it could have been presented in the ordinary way. It could have been held and handled confidentially at first, which was what Dr. Ford's wishes were as I understand it. It wouldn't have caused this - like, destroyed my family like this - this effort has.

DURBIN: I think an FBI investigation will help all of us on both sides of the issue.

GRASSLEY: Senator Graham asked for the floor. But before he does, it seems to me that if you want to know something, you've got the witness right here to - to ask him. And secondly, if you want an FBI report, you can ask for it yourself. I've asked for FBI reports in the past, in the 38 years I've been in the Senate.

Senator Graham.

GRAHAM: Are you aware that at 9:23 on the night of July the 9th, the day you were nominated to the Supreme Court by President Trump, Senator Schumer said 23-minutes after your nomination, "I will oppose Judge Kavanaugh's nomination with everything I have, I have (sic) a bipartisan - and I hope a bipartisan majority will do the same. The stakes are simply too high for anything less." Well, if you weren't aware of it, you are now.

Did you meet with Senator Dianne Feinstein on August 20th?

KAVANAUGH: I did meet with Senator Feinstein...

GRAHAM: Did you know that her staff had already recommended a lawyer to Dr. Ford?

KAVANAUGH: ... I did not know that.

GRAHAM: Did you know that her and her staff had this - allegations for over 20 days?

KAVANAUGH: I did not know that at the time.

GRAHAM: If you wanted a 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?

KAVANAUGH: No.

GRAHAM: I cannot imagine what you and your family have gone through.

Boy, you all 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's as much of a victim as you are. God, I hate to say it because these have been my friends. But let me tell you, when it comes to this, you're looking for a fair process? You came to the wrong town at the wrong time, my friend. Do you consider this a job interview?

KAVANAUGH: If (ph) the advice and consent role is like a job interview.

GRAHAM: Do you consider that you've been through a job interview?

KAVANAUGH: I've been through a process of advice and consent under the Constitution, which...

GRAHAM: Would you say you've been through hell?

KAVANAUGH: I - I've been through hell and then some.

GRAHAM: This is not a job interview.

KAVANAUGH: Yes.

GRAHAM: This is hell.

KAVANAUGH: This - this...

GRAHAM: This is going to destroy the ability of good people to come forward because of this crap. Your high school yearbook - you have interacted with professional women all your life, not one accusation.

You're supposed to be Bill Cosby when you're a junior and senior in high school. And all of a sudden, you got over it. It's been my understanding that if you drug women and rape them for two years in high school, you probably don't stop.

Here's my understanding, if you lived a good life people would recognize it, like the American Bar Association has, the gold standard. His integrity is absolutely unquestioned. He is the very circumspect in his personal conduct, harbors no biases or prejudices. He's entirely ethical, is a really decent person. He is warm, friendly, unassuming. He's the nicest person - the ABA.

The one thing I can tell you should be proud of - Ashley, you should be proud of this - that you raised a daughter who had the good character to pray for Dr. Ford.

To my Republican colleagues, if you vote no, you're legitimizing the most despicable thing I have seen in my time in politics. You want this seat? I hope you never get it.

I hope you're on the Supreme Court, that's exactly where you should be. And I hope that the American people will see through this charade. And I wish you well. And I intend to vote for you and I hope everybody who's fair-minded will.

GRASSLEY: Senator Whitehouse.

WHITEHOUSE: Should we let things settle a little bit after that?

GRASSLEY: If you want to - we'll take a 60-second break.

WHITEHOUSE: No, I'm good.

GRASSLEY: OK. Go ahead.

WHITEHOUSE: I'm good.

One of the reasons, Mr. Kavanaugh, that we are looking at the yearbook is that it is relatively consistent in time with the events at issue here and because it appears to be your words. Is it, in fact, your words on your yearbook page?

KAVANAUGH: We - we submitted things to the editors and I believe they took them. I don't know if they changed things or not, but.

WHITEHOUSE: You're not aware of any changes? As far as you know...

KAVANAUGH: I don't - I'm not aware one way...

WHITEHOUSE: ... these are your words?

KAVANAUGH: ... I'm not aware one way or the other, but I'm not going to sit here and contest that. Have at it, if you want to go through my yearbook.

WHITEHOUSE: Yes, I'm - I'm actually interested. You know, lawyers should be working off of common terms and understand the words that we're using. I think that's a pretty basic principle among lawyers, wouldn't you agree?

KAVANAUGH: It is. If you're worried about my yearbook, have at, senator.

WHITEHOUSE: Let's look at, "Beach Week Ralph Club - Biggest Contributor," what does the word Ralph mean in that?

KAVANAUGH: That probably refers to throwing up. I'm known to have a weak stomach and I always have. In fact, the last time I was here, you asked me about having ketchup on spaghetti. I always have had a weak stomach.

DURBIN: I don't know that I asked about ketchup on spaghetti, but...

KAVANAUGH: You - you didn't, someone did. And...

WHITEHOUSE: OK.

KAVANAUGH: ... this is well-known. Anyone who's known me, like a lot of these people behind me - known me my whole life - know, you know. I got a weak stomach, whether it's with beer or with spicy food or anything.

WHITEHOUSE: So the vomiting that you reference in the Ralph Club reference, related to the consumption of alcohol?

KAVANAUGH: Senator, I was at the top of my class academically, busted my butt in school. Captain of the varsity basketball team. Got in Yale College. When I got into Yale College, got into Yale Law School. Worked my tail off.

WHITEHOUSE: And did the world "ralph" you used in your yearbook...

(CROSSTALK)

KAVANAUGH: I already - I already answered...

WHITEHOUSE: ... refer (ph) to alcohol?

KAVANAUGH: ... the question. If you're...

WHITEHOUSE: Did it relate to alcohol? You haven't answered that.

KAVANAUGH: I like beer. I like beer. I don't know if you do...

WHITEHOUSE: OK.

KAVANAUGH: ... do you like beer, Senator, or not?

WHITEHOUSE: Um, next...

KAVANAUGH: What do you like to drink?

WHITEHOUSE: Next one is...

KAVANAUGH: Senator, what do you like to drink?

WHITEHOUSE: ... Judge, have you - I don't know if it's "boufed" or "boofed" - how do you pronounce that?

KAVANAUGH: That refers to flatulence. We were 16.

(LAUGHTER)

WHITEHOUSE: OK. And so when your friend Mark Judge said the same - put the same thing in his yearbook page back to you, he had the same meaning? It was flatulence?

KAVANAUGH: I don't know what he did, but that's my recollection. We want to talk about flatulence at age 16 on a yearbook page, I'm - I'm game.

WHITEHOUSE: You mentioned, I think, the Renate or Renata - I don't know how you pronounce that - that's a proper name of an individual you know?

KAVANAUGH: Renata.

WHITEHOUSE: Renata. It's spelled with an "E" at the end, R-E-N-A-T-E. Is that...

KAVANAUGH: Correct.

WHITEHOUSE: OK. And then after that is the word "alumnius." What does the word "alumnius" mean in that context?

KAVANAUGH: I explained that in my opening statement. We - she was a great friend of ours. We - a bunch of us went to dances with her. She hung out with us as a group. The media circus that has been generated by this, thought (ph) and reported that it referred to sex. It did not. Never had any - as she herself said on the record, any kind of sexual interaction with her.

And I'm sorry, how that's been misinterpreted and sorry about that, as I explained in my opening statement. Because she's a good person. And to have her named dragged through this hearing is a joke. And, really, an embarrassment.

WHITEHOUSE: Devil's triangle?

KAVANAUGH: Drinking game.

WHITEHOUSE: How's it played?

KAVANAUGH: Three glasses in a triangle.

WHITEHOUSE: And?

KAVANAUGH: You ever played quarters?

WHITEHOUSE: No (ph).

KAVANAUGH: OK. It's a quarters game.

WHITEHOUSE: Anne Dougherty's?

KAVANAUGH: As you can tell from my calendar, she had a party on the Fourth of July in the beach in Delaware.

WHITEHOUSE: And there are, like, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven F's in front of the Fourth of July. What does that signify, if anything?

KAVANAUGH: One of our friends, Squi, when he said the F word starting at a young age, had kind of a wind-up to the F word. Kind of a "ffff."

(LAUGHTER)

And then the word would come out. And when we were 15, we thought that was funny. And it became an inside joke for the - how he would say, "Ffff" - and I won't repeat it here. For the F word.

WHITEHOUSE: Referring to Georgetown versus Louisville and...

KAVANAUGH: you want - you want any more on the Fs?

WHITEHOUSE: No. Orioles versus Red Sox. And both, you respond, "Who won anyway?" Or "Who won that game anyway?" Should we draw any conclusion that a loss of recollection associated with alcohol was involved in you not knowing who won the games that you attended?

KAVANAUGH: No. First of all, the Georgetown-Louisville was watching it on TV, a party. And the...

WHITEHOUSE: That's not inconsistent with drinking and not remembering what happened.

KAVANAUGH: I'm aware. And the point of both was, we in essence were having a party and didn't pay attention to the game even though the game was the excuse we had for getting together.

I think that's very common. I don't know if you've been to a Super Bowl party for example, Senator, and not paid attention to the game and just hung out with your friends. I don't know if you've done that or not. But that's what we were referring to in those - those two occasions.

GRASSLEY: Senator Cornyn?

CORNYN: Judge, I can't think of a more embarrassing scandal for the United States Senate since the McCarthy hearings.

When the comment was about the cruelty of the process toward the people involved, and the question was asked: Have you no sense of decency?

And I'm afraid we've lost that, at least for the time being. Do you understand you've been accused of multiple crimes?

KAVANAUGH: I'm - I'm painfully aware, for my family and me to read about this breathless reporting.

CORNYN: Of course, the - the sexual assault that Dr. Ford claims that you've denied. Then the claims of Ms. Ramirez, that not even The New York Times would report because it couldn't corroborate it.

And then Stormy Daniels' lawyer released a bombshell, accusing you of gang rape. All of those are crimes, are they not?

KAVANAUGH: They are. And I'm - I'm never going to get my reputation back. It's - it - my life is totally and permanently altered.

CORNYN: Well Judge - Judge, don't give up.

KAVANAUGH: I'm not giving up. I...

CORNYN: The American - the American people - the American people are listening to this, and they will make their decision and I think you'll come out on the right side of that decision.

KAVANAUGH: Well, I will always be a good person and try to be a good judge, whatever happens. But...

CORNYN: So this is not a job interview. You've been accused of a crime. If you have lied to the committee and the investigators, that is a crime in and of itself, correct?

KAVANAUGH: That is correct.

CORNYN: So in order to vote against your nomination, we would have to conclude that you are a serial liar.

KAVANAUGH: Yeah.

CORNYN: And you will have exposed yourself to legal jeopardy in the way - in your interaction with this committee and the investigators, isn't that correct?

KAVANAUGH: That's - that's my understanding.

CORNYN: You talked in your interview on - with Martha MacCallum the other night about a fair process. Some of my colleagues across the aisle say, "Well, the burden is not on the accuser because this is a job interview," the burden is on you.

But you said you weren't there and it didn't happen. It's impossible for you to prove a negative. So I would just suggest that you have been accused of a crime and that a fair process, under the United States Constitution, under our notion of fair play, means that the people who make an accusation against you have to come forward with some evidence.

Isn't that part of a fair process?

KAVANAUGH: Yes, sir, Senator.

CORNYN: And part of that means that if you're going to make an allegation, there needs to be corroboration. In other words, you're not guilty because somebody makes an accusation against you in this country. We're not a police state. We don't give the government that kind of power.

We insist that those charges be proven by competent evidence. And I know we're not in a court. I've told my colleagues, if we were in court, half of them would be in contempt of court.

But you have been accused of a crime, and I believe fundamental notions of fair play and justice and our constitutional system require that if somebody's going to make that accusation against you, then they need to come forward with some corroboration, not just allegations.

And you're right to be angry about the delays in your ability to come here and protect your good name, because in the interim, it just keeps getting worse. It's not Dr. Ford. It this story that not even the New York Times would report, the allegation of Ms. Ramirez. And then Stormy Daniels' lawyer comes up with this incredible story, accusing you of the most sordid and salacious conduct. It's outrageous, and you're right to be angry.

But this is your chance to tell your story, and I hope you have a chance to tell us everything you want tell us. But the burden is not on you to disprove the allegations made. The burden under our system, when you accuse somebody of criminal conduct, is on the person making the accusation.

Now, I understand we're not - this isn't a trial, like I said, but I just wanted to make sure that we understood. It's hard to reconstruct what happened 36 years ago, and I appreciate what you said about Dr. Ford, that perhaps she has had an incident at some point in her life, and you are sympathetic to that, and...

But your reputation is on the line, and I hope people understand the gravity of the charges made against you, and what a fair process looks like.

GRASSLEY: Senator Klobuchar?

KLOBUCHAR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Judge, we're talking here about decency, and - and you understand, we have this constitutional duty to advise and consent. And for me, when this evidence came forward, I decided that I needed to look at this, and I needed to find out about it, and I needed to ask you questions about it, as well as others that were involved.

So again, I'm not going to take quite the same approach as my colleagues here and talk about Don McGahn, or any of this. Why don't you just ask the president? Mrs. - Dr. Ford can't do this. We clearly haven't been able to do this. But just ask the president to reopen the FBI investigation.

KAVANAUGH: I think the committee is doing - you're doing the investigation. I'm here to answer your questions...

KLOBUCHAR: No.

KAVANAUGH: ... and I should say one thing, Senator Klobuchar, which is I appreciate our meeting together, and I appreciate how you handled the prior hearing, and I have a lot of respect for you.

KLOBUCHAR: Well, thank you. All of that aside, here's the thing: you could actually just get this open so that we can talk to these witnesses, and the FBI can do it instead of us. And you've come before us, but we have people like Mark Judge, who Dr. Ford says was a witness to this. We have this polygraph expert that my colleagues were raising issues about the polygraph. We would like to have that person come before us. And I just think if we could open this up...

KAVANAUGH: I don't mean to - I don't mean to interrupt, but I guess I am. But Mark - Mark Judge has provided sworn statement saying this didn't happen, and that I never did or would do...

KLOBUCHAR: But we would like the FBI to be able to follow up and ask him questions. You know, we talked about past nomination processes, and you talked those, and I note that President George Bush, in the Anita Hill / Justice Thomas case, he opened up the FBI investigation and let questions being asked, and I think it was helpful for people. So was his decision reasonable?

KAVANAUGH: I - I don't know the circumstances of that. What I know, Senator, is I'm (inaudible)

KLOBUCHAR: But you - that it - he - he just - the circumstances are that he opened up the investigation so the FBI could ask some questions.

KAVANAUGH: I - I'm...

KLOBUCHAR: That's what he - he opened up the background check.

KAVANAUGH: I'm here to answer questions about my yearbook, or about, you know, what I...

KLOBUCHAR: OK, that's - I...

KAVANAUGH: ... my sports, or, you know, summer basketball...

KLOBUCHAR: OK. I'm not going to ask about the yearbook.

So most people have done some drinking in high school and college, and many people even struggle with alcoholism and binge drinking. My own dad struggled with alcoholism most of his life, and he got in trouble for it, and there were consequences. He is still in A.A. at age 90, and he's sober, and in his words, he was pursued by grace, and that's how he got through this.

So in your case, you have said, here and other places, that you never drank so much that you didn't remember what happened. But yet, we have heard - not under oath, but we have heard your college roommate say that you did drink frequently. These are in news reports. That you would sometimes be belligerent. Another classmate said it's not credible for you to say you didn't have memory lapses. So drinking is one thing.

KAVANAUGH: I don't think - I - I actually don't think that's - the second quote's correct. On the first quote, if you wanted, I provided some material that's still redacted about the situation with the freshman year roommate, and I don't really want to repeat that in a public hearing, but just so you know, there were three people in a room, Dave White, Jamie Roach (ph) and me, and it was a contentious situation where Jamie did not like Dave White. I was - at all, and I'm in this...

KLOBUCHAR: OK, I - I just...

KAVANAUGH: So Dave - so Dave White came back from - from home one weekend, and Jamie Roach had moved all his furniture...

KLOBUCHAR: OK. OK.

KAVANAUGH: ... out into the - out into the courtyard.

KLOBUCHAR: OK.

KAVANAUGH: And so he walks in, and so that's your source on that, so there's some old...

KLOBUCHAR: OK, so drinking is one thing.

KAVANAUGH: There - and there's much more. Look at the redacted portion of what I said. I don't want to repeat that in a public hearing.

KLOBUCHAR: All right. I will. I will.

KAVANAUGH: (inaudible)

KLOBUCHAR: Could I just ask one question?

KAVANAUGH: ... redacted information about that.

KLOBUCHAR: OK. Drinking is one thing, but the concern is about truthfulness, and in your written testimony, you said sometimes you had too many drinks. Was there ever a time when you drank so much that you couldn't remember what happened, or part of what happened the night before?

KAVANAUGH: No, I - no. I remember what happened, and I think you've probably had beers, Senator, and - and so I...

KLOBUCHAR: So you're saying there's never been a case where you drank so much that you didn't remember what happened the night before, or part of what happened.

KAVANAUGH: It's - you're asking about, you know, blackout. I don't know. Have you?

KLOBUCHAR: Could you answer the question, Judge? I just - so you - that's not happened. Is that your answer?

KAVANAUGH: Yeah, and I'm curious if you have.

KLOBUCHAR: I have no drinking problem, Judge.

KAVANAUGH: Yeah, nor do I.

KLOBUCHAR: OK, thank you.

GRASSLEY: Before I go to Senator Hatch, since this FBI thing keeps coming up all the time, let's get back to basics. First of all, anybody, including any senator that's brought up this issue, could ask for an FBI investigation. What the FBI does is gather information for the White House, then the file's sent to the committee for us to make our own evaluations. We're capable of making our own determination about the accuracy of any of those allegations. The FBI has put out a statement over, now I suppose it's a month ago, clearly stating this matter is closed, as far as - as the - the letter being sent to them, and there is no federal crime to investigate.

If Senator - Senate Democrats hope for the FBI to draw any conclusions on this matter, I'm going to remind you what Joe Biden said. Now, I said this my statement, but maybe - maybe people aren't listening when I say, and maybe they won't even hear this.

Joe Biden, quote, "The next person who refers to an FBI report as being worth anything obviously doesn't understand anything. The FBI explicitly does not - does not, in this or any other case, reach a conclusion. Period... They say 'He said, she said, and they said.' Period. So when people waive an FBI report before you," or even bring it up now as something prospectively - I'm not - that wasn't in his quote, "understand they do not, they do not, they do not reach conclusions... they do not make recommendations."

Senator Hatch.

WHITEHOUSE: Mr. Chairman?

(UNKNOWN): We need a break.

HATCH (?): No, don't take a break.

WHITEHOUSE: Mr. Chairman?

HATCH (?): Let me do this.

WHITEHOUSE: May I say for the record that, actually, we have asked? You said that nobody's asked the FBI, or we could ask the FBI. I actually have. I think others have. And I think that the issue is that part of what an FBI report does...

GRASSLEY: You want to take a break (ph)?

WHITEHOUSE: ... is to investigate and seek either corroborating or exculpatory evidence. It's not so much the conclusion that it draws as the breadth of the evidence that is sought out through the investigation and the difference between what somebody might say to an FBI agent when they're being examined, and for instance Mr. Judge's letter signed by his lawyer sent in. It's a - it's just a different thing.

And I believe still that this is the first background investigation in the history of background investigations that hasn't been reopened when new credible derogatory information was raised about the subject, about the nominee. So I, you know, I just didn't want to let the point you made stand without...

GRASSLEY: Well, I'll - I'll...

WHITEHOUSE: ... referencing the - what we had tried to do.

GRASSLEY: ... Pardon me, but I'll just add to the point you made. The letter was sent to the FBI. The FBI sent it to the White House with a letter saying the case is closed.

We're taking a break now, for senator - we're taking a break now.

(RECESS)

GRASSLEY: Judge, are you ready?

KAVANAUGH: I am ready. And can I say one thing?

GRASSLEY: Yes.

KAVANAUGH: Just going to say I started my last colloquy by saying to Senator Klobuchar how much I respect her and respected what she did at the last hearing. And she asked me a question at the end that I responded by asking her a question and I didn't - sorry, I did that. This is a tough process. I'm sorry about that.

KLOBUCHAR: I appreciate that. I - I would like to add, when you have a parent that's a alcoholic, you're pretty careful about drinking.

And - and the second thing is I was truly just trying to get the bottom of the facts and the evidence. And I, again, believe we do that by opening up the FBI investigation, and I would call it a background check instead of investigation. Thank you.

KAVANAUGH: Appreciate that.

GRASSLEY: Senator Hatch.

HATCH: Well, thank you.

Judge, welcome, we're happy to have you here. My friend from - I'd just like to say a few words - my friend from Arizona emphasized yesterday that we have before us today two human beings, Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh. They deserve - each of you deserves to be treated fairly and respectfully.

We tried to do that with Dr. Ford earlier and I think we succeeded. It's important that we treat Judge Kavanaugh fairly now. And it remains to be seen how that's going to work out.

Judge Kavanaugh has been a federal judge for 12 years. And he's been a great federal judge on the second-highest court in the nation. He's earned a reputation for fairness and decency. His clerks love him. His students he teaches in law school as well, his students love him. His colleagues love him. This man is not a monster, nor is he what has been represented here in these hearings.

We're talking today about Judge Kavanaugh's conduct in high school - and even then, and as a freshman in college, I guess, as well. Serious allegations have been raised. If Judge Kavanaugh committed sexual assault, he should not serve on the Supreme Court; I think we'd all agree with that.

MORE KAVANAUGH: Yes, that - that is emphatically what I'm saying; emphatically. The Swetnick thing is a joke. That is a farce.

FEINSTEIN: Would you like to say more about it?

KAVANAUGH: No.

FEINSTEIN: OK.

(LAUGHTER)

FEINSTEIN: OK. That's it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

GRASSLEY: OK. Ms. Mitchell.

MITCHELL: Dr. Ford has described you as being intoxicated at a party. Did you consume alcohol during your high school years?

KAVANAUGH: 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, as I noted, 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.

MITCHELL: What do you...

KAVANAUGH: We drank beer. We liked beer.

MITCHELL: What do you consider to be too many beers?

KAVANAUGH: I don't know. You know, we - whatever the chart says, a blood-alcohol chart.

MITCHELL: 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?

KAVANAUGH: Sure.

MITCHELL: OK. Have you ever passed out from drinking?

KAVANAUGH: I - passed out would be - no, but I've gone to sleep, but - but I've never blacked out. That's the - that's the - the allegation, and that - that - that's wrong.

MITCHELL: So let's talk about your time in high school. In high school, after drinking, did you ever wake up in a different location than you remembered passing out or going to sleep?

KAVANAUGH: No, no.

MITCHELL: Did you ever wake up with your clothes in a different condition, or fewer clothes on than you remembered when you went to sleep or passed out?

KAVANAUGH: No, no.

MITCHELL: Did you ever tell - did anyone ever tell you about something that happened in your presence that you didn't remember during a time that you had been drinking?

KAVANAUGH: No, the - the - we drank beer, and you know, so - so did, I think, the vast majority of - of people our age at the time. But in any event, we drank beer, and - and still do. So whatever, you know.

MITCHELL: During the time in high school when you would be drinking, did anyone ever tell you about something that you did not remember?

KAVANAUGH: No.

MITCHELL: Dr. Ford described a small gathering of people at a suburban Maryland home in the summer of 1982. She said that Mark Judge, P.J. Smyth and Leland Ingham also were present, as well as an unknown male, and that the people were drinking to varying degrees. Were you ever at a gathering that fits that description?

KAVANAUGH: No, as I've said in my opening statements - opening statement.

MITCHELL: Dr. Ford described an incident where she was alone in a room with you and Mark Judge. Have you ever been alone in a room with Dr. Ford and Mark Judge?

KAVANAUGH: No.

MITCHELL: Dr. Ford described an incident where you were grinding your genitals on her. Have you ever ground or rubbed your genitals against Dr. Ford?

KAVANAUGH: No.

MITCHELL: Dr. Ford described an incident where you covered her mouth with your hand. Have you ever covered Dr. Ford's mouth with your hand?

KAVANAUGH: No.

MITCHELL: Dr. Ford described an incident where you tried to remove her clothes. Have you ever tried to remove her clothes?

KAVANAUGH: No.

MITCHELL: Referring back to the definition of sexual behavior that I have given you, have you ever, at any time, engaged in sexual behavior with Dr. Ford?

KAVANAUGH: No.

MITCHELL: Have you ever engaged in sexual behavior with Dr. Ford, even if it was consensual?

KAVANAUGH: No.

MITCHELL: I want to talk about your calendars. You submitted to the committee copies of the handwritten calendars that you've talked about for the months of May, June, July and August of 1982. Do you have them in front of you?

KAVANAUGH: I do.

MITCHELL: Did you create these calendars, in the sense of all the handwriting that's on them?

KAVANAUGH: Yes.

MITCHELL: OK. Is it exclusively your handwriting?

KAVANAUGH: Yes.

MITCHELL: When did you make these entries?

KAVANAUGH: In nine - in 1982.

MITCHELL: Has anything changed - been changed for those since 1982?

KAVANAUGH: No.

MITCHELL: Do these calendars represent your plans for each day, or do they document - in other words, prospectively, or do they document what actually occurred, more like a diary?

KAVANAUGH: They're both forward-looking and backward-looking, as you can tell by looking at them, because I cross out certain doctor's appointments that didn't happen, or one night where I was supposed to lift weights, I crossed that out, because it - I obviously didn't make it that night. So you can see things that I didn't do crossed out in retrospect, and also, when I list the specific people who I was with, that is likely backward-looking.

MITCHELL: You explain that you kept these calendars because your father started keeping them in 1978, I believe you said. That's why you kept them. In other words, you wrote on them. But why did you keep them up until this time?

KAVANAUGH: Well - well, he's kept them, too, since 1978, so he's a good role model.

GRASSLEY: Ms. Mitchell, you'll have to stop.

MITCHELL: Oh, I'm sorry.

GRASSLEY: Judge Kavanaugh has asked for a break, so we'll take a 15-minute break.

(RECESS)

GRASSLEY: Just waiting for you, Diane.

FEINSTEIN: Sorry.

GRASSLEY: Don't - don't apologize, you...

(CROSSTALK)

GRASSLEY: Senator Leahy?

LEAHY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Judge, you said before, and again today, that Mark Judge was a close friend of yours in high school. Now Dr. Ford, as you know, has said that he was in the room when she was attacked. She also says you were, too.

Unfortunate (ph) that (ph) the FBI has never interviewed him. We might (ph) be able to have his attendance here. The chairman refuses to call him.

If she's saying Mark Judge was in the room then, then he should be in the room here today. Would you want him called as a witness?

KAVANAUGH: Senator, this allegation came into the committee...

LEAHY: No, I'm just asking the question. Would you want him to be here as a witness?

KAVANAUGH: He's - he's already provided sworn testimony to the committee. This allegation's been hidden by the committee...

LEAHY: Now, well (ph)...

(CROSSTALK)

KAVANAUGH: ... by - by members of the...

LEAHY: ... it hasn't been - it has not been investigated by the FBI. The committee has refused to allow it to be.

KAVANAUGH: It was dropped on (ph)...

(CROSSTALK)

KAVANAUGH: ... it was sprung.

LEAHY: It was not investigated by the FBI, and he has not been called where he might be under oath.

KAVANAUGH: Should have been handled in the due course, Senator.

(CROSSTALK)

KAVANAUGH: When he came in.

LEAHY: I would - I would disagree with that. I've been on this committee 44 years, both Republicans and Democrats. I've never seen somebody that critical and not allowed to be here to - called to be testified or on (ph) FBI background.

But let me ask...

(CROSSTALK)

KAVANAUGH: You see (ph) he's provided sworn testimony and the...

LEAHY: He has - he has not...

KAVANAUGH: ... Senator - Senator, let me - let me finish. He - the - the allegation came in weeks ago and nothing was done with it by the ranking member.

And then it's sprung on me...

LEAHY: Judge Kavanaugh, I've heard your - your line (ph) and you state it over and over again. And I have that well in mind. But let me ask you this. He authored a book titled, "Wasted: Tales of a Genx Drunk." He references a Barthold (ph) Kavanaugh vomiting on someone's car during Beach Week and then passing out. Is that you that he's talking about?

KAVANAUGH: Senator, Mark Judge was...

LEAHY: To your knowledge, is that you that he's talking about?

KAVANAUGH: I'll explain it if you let me.

LEAHY: Proceed, please.

KAVANAUGH: Mark Judge was a friend of ours in high school who developed a very serious drinking problem, an addiction problem that lasted decades and was very difficult for him to escape from.

And he nearly died. And then developed - then he had leukemia as well, on top of it.

Now, as part of his therapy - or part of his coming to grips with sobriety, he wrote a book that is a fictionalized book and an account....

(CROSSTALK)

KAVANAUGH: I think he picked out names of friends of ours to throw them in as kind of close to what - for characters in the book. So, you know, we can sit here...

LEAHY: So you don't know - you don't know whether that's you or not?

KAVANAUGH: ... we can sit here and you (ph) like (ph), make - make fun of some guy who has an addiction.

LEAHY: I'm not making...

(CROSSTALK)

KAVANAUGH: I don't think that really makes - is really good...

LEAHY: ... Judge Kavanaugh, I'm trying to get a straight answer from you under oath. Are you Bart (ph) Kavanaugh that he's referring to, yes or no? That's it (ph)...

KAVANAUGH: You'd have to ask him.

LEAHY: Well, I agree with you there. And that's why I wish that the chairman had him here under oath.

Now, you've talked about your yearbook. In your yearbook, you talked about drinking and sexual exploits, did you not?

KAVANAUGH: Senator, let me - let me take a step back and explain high school. I was number one in the class...

LEAHY: And I - and I thought (ph)...

KAVANAUGH: ... freshman - no, no, no, no, no.

LEAHY: I thought we were in the Senate (ph)...

KAVANAUGH: You've got this all - I'm going to - I'm going to talk about my high school...

LEAHY: ... the (ph) whole (ph) question (ph).

I thought we were in the Senate (ph) filibuster (ph).

KAVANAUGH: ... no, no.

GRASSLEY: Let him answer.

KAVANAUGH: I'm going to talk about my high school record, if you're going to sit here and mock me.

GRASSLEY: We - we were - I think we were all very fair to Dr. Ford. Shouldn't we be just as fair to Judge Kavanaugh?

(CROSSTALK)

KAVANAUGH: I busted my butt in academics. I always tried to do the best I could. As I recall, I finished one in the class, first in - you know, freshman and junior year, right at the top with Steve (ph) Clark (ph) and Eddie (ph) (inaudible), we were always kind of in the mix.

I - I played sports. I was captain of the varsity basketball team. I was wide receiver and defensive back on the football team. I ran track in the spring of '82 to try to get faster. I did my service projects at the school, which involved going to the soup kitchen downtown - let me finish - and going to tutor intellectually disabled kids at the Rockville Library.

With the church - and, yes, we got together with our friends.

LEAHY: Does this reflect what you are? Does this yearbook reflect your...

KAVANAUGH: I...

LEAHY: ... focus on academics and your respect for women? That's easy. Yes or no. You don't have to filibuster the answer. Does it reflect your focus on academics...

(CROSSTALK)

KAVANAUGH: I already said the yearbook - in my opening statement. The yearbook, obviously...

GRASSLEY: Judge? Just wait a minute. He's asked the question. I'll give you time to answer it.

KAVANAUGH: The - the yearbook, as I said in my opening statement, was something where the students and editors made a decision to treat some of it as farce and some of as exaggeration, some of it celebrating things that don't reflect the things that were really the central part of our school.

Yes, we went to parties, though. Yes, of course, we went to parties and the yearbook page describes that and kind of makes fun of it. And as a - you know, if we want to sit here and talk about whether a Supreme Court nomination should be based on a high school yearbook page, I think that's taken us to a new level of absurdity.

LEAHY: Ms. Mitchell? Well, we got a filibuster but not a single answer.

GRASSLEY: Ms. Mitchell?

MITCHELL: Judge, do you still have your calendar - calendars there?

KAVANAUGH: I do.

MITCHELL: I would like you to look at the July 1st entry.

KAVANAUGH: Yes.

MITCHELL: The entry says - and I quote - "Go to Timmy's (ph) for skis (ph) with Judge (ph), Tom (ph), P.J. (ph), Bernie (ph) and Squee (ph)"?

KAVANAUGH: Squee. That's a nick...

MITCHELL: What does...

KAVANAUGH: ... that's a nickname.

MITCHELL: OK. To what does this refer, and to whom?

KAVANAUGH: So first, says "Tobin's (ph) house workout". So that's one of the football workouts that we would have - that Dr. (inaudible) would run for guys on the football team during the summer.

So we would be there - that's usually 6:00 to 8:00 or so, kind of - until near dark. And then it looks like we went over to Timmy's - you want to know their last names too? I'm happy to do it.

MITCHELL: If you could just identify, is - is "Judge," Mark Judge?

KAVANAUGH: It is.

MITCHELL: And is "P.J.," P.J. Smith?

KAVANAUGH: It is.

So - all right. It's Tim Gaudette (ph), Mark Judge, Tom Caine (ph), P.J. Smith, Bernie McCarthy (ph), Chris Garrett (ph).

MITCHELL: Chris Garrett is Squee?

KAVANAUGH: He is.

MITCHELL: Did you in your calendar routinely document social gatherings like house parties or gatherings of friends in your calendar?

KAVANAUGH: Yes. It - it certainly appears that way, that's what I was doing in the summer of 1982. And you can see that reflected on several of the - several of the entries.

MITCHELL: If a gathering like Dr. Ford has described had occurred, would you have documented that?

KAVANAUGH: Yes, because I documented everything of those kinds of events, even small get-togethers. August 7th is another good example where I documented a small get-together that summer, so yes.

MITCHELL: August 7th. Could you read that?

KAVANAUGH: I think that's go to Becky's, Matt, Denise, Lori, Jenny (ph).

MITCHELL: Have you reviewed every entry that is in these calendars of May, June, July and August of 1982?

KAVANAUGH: I have.

MITCHELL: Is there anything that could even remotely fit what we're talking about, in terms of Dr. Ford's allegations?

KAVANAUGH: No.

MITCHELL: As a lawyer and a judge, are you - we've talked about the FBI. Are you aware that this type of offense would actually be investigated by local police?

KAVANAUGH: Yes, I mentioned Montgomery County Police earlier. Yes.

MITCHELL: OK. Are you aware that in Maryland, there is no statute of limitations that would prohibit you being charged, even if this happened in 1982?

KAVANAUGH: That's my understanding.

MITCHELL: Have you, at any time, been contacted by any members of local police agencies regarding this matter?

KAVANAUGH: No, ma'am.

MITCHELL: Prior to your nomination for Supreme Court, you've talked about all of the female clerks you've had, and the women that you've worked with. I'm not just talking about them; I'm talking about globally. Have you ever been accused, either formally or informally, of unwanted sexual behavior?

KAVANAUGH: No.

MITCHELL: And when I say informally, I mean just a - a female complains. It doesn't have to be to anybody else but you.

KAVANAUGH: No.

MITCHELL: Since Dr. Ford's allegation was made public, how many times have you been interviewed by the committee?

KAVANAUGH: It's - it's been a - three or four. I'm - I'm trying to remember now. It's - it's been several times. Each of these new things, absurd as they are, we'd get on the phone and kind of go through them.

MITCHELL: So have you submitted to interviews specifically about Dr. Ford's allegation?

KAVANAUGH: Yes.

MITCHELL: And what about Deborah Ramirez's allegation...

KAVANAUGH: Yes.

MITCHELL: ... that you waved your penis in front of her?

KAVANAUGH: Yes.

MITCHELL: What about Julie Swetnick's allegation that you repeatedly engaged in drugging and gang-raping, or allowing women to be gang-raped?

KAVANAUGH: Yes. Yes, I've been interviewed about it.

MITCHELL: Were your answers to my questions today consistent with the answers that you gave to the committee in these various interviews?

KAVANAUGH: Yes, ma'am.

MITCHELL: OK. I see I'm out of time.

GRASSLEY: Senator Durbin?

DURBIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Judge Kavanaugh, earlier today, Dr. Christine Ford sat in that same chair, and under oath, she said clearly and unequivocally that she was a victim of sexual assault at your hands. She answered our questions directly, and she didn't flinch at the prospect of submitting herself to an FBI investigation of these charges. We know, and I'm sure she's been advised by her attorneys, that a person lying to the FBI can face criminal prosecution.

You have clearly and unequivocally denied that you assaulted Dr. Ford. With that statement, you must believe that there is no credible evidence or any credible witness that could prove otherwise.

You started off with an impassioned statement at the beginning, and I can imagine, try to imagine what you have been through, and your family's been through, and I'm sure I wouldn't get close to it. But it was an impassioned...

(UNKNOWN): OK. I'm sure you wouldn't.

DURBIN: I'm sure I wouldn't. It's an impassioned statement. And in the course of it, you said, "I welcome any kind of investigation." I quote you. I welcome any kind of investigation. I've got a suggestion for you: right now, turn to your left in the front row to Don McGahn, counsel to President Donald Trump. Ask him to suspend this hearing and nomination process until the FBI completes its investigation of the charges made by Dr. Ford and others, and goes to bring the witnesses forward, and provides that information to this hearing. I am sure that the chairman at that point will understand that that is a reasonable request to finally put to rest these charges, if they are false, or to prove them if they are not.

You spent two years in the White House office that approved judicial nominees. You turned to the FBI over, and over, and over again for their work. Let's bring them in here and now. Turn to Don McGahn, and tell him it's time to get this done. An FBI investigation is the only way to answer some of these questions.

(UNKNOWN): Senator...

GRASSLEY: Stop the - stop the clock.

This committee is - is running this hearing, not the White House, not Don McGahn, not even you as a nominee. We're - we are here today because Dr. Ford asked for an opportunity to hear. I know you did too, as well, in fact, maybe even before she did.

We're here because people wanted to be heard from charges that they all thought were unfair, or activities like sexual assault was unfair. So I want to assure Senator Durbin, regardless of what you say to Senator Don McGahn, we're not suspending this hearing.

Proceed to answer the question, or so whatever - or to - if the gentleman...

DURBIN: I - I'll just say this: If you, Judge Kavanaugh, turned to Don McGahn and to this committee and say, "For the sake of my reputation, my family name, and to get to the bottom of the truth of this, I am not going to stay - be an obstacle to an FBI investigation," I would hope that all the members of the committee would join me in saying, "We're going to abide by your witch - wishes, and we will have that investigation."

KAVANAUGH: I - I welcome whatever the committee wants to do, because I'm telling the truth.

DURBIN: I want to know what you want to do.

KAVANAUGH: I - I'm telling the truth.

DURBIN: I want to know what you want to do, Judge.

KAVANAUGH: I'm innocent. I'm innocent of this charge.

DURBIN: Then you're prepared for an FBI investigator...

KAVANAUGH: They don't reach conclusions. You reach the conclusion, Senator.

DURBIN: No, but they do investigate questions.

KAVANAUGH: I'm - I'm innocent.

DURBIN: And you can't have it both ways, Judge. You can't say here at the beginning...

KAVANAUGH: I wanted a hearing.

DURBIN: (inaudible) your moment.

KAVANAUGH: Look, this thing...

DURBIN: I welcome any kind of investigation, and then walk away from this.

KAVANAUGH: This thing was sprung on me - this thing was sprung at the last minute after being held by staff. You know...

DURBIN: Judge, if there is no truth to...

KAVANAUGH: And I called for a - I called for a hearing immediately.

DURBIN: If there is no truth to her charges, the FBI investigation will show that. Are you afraid that they might not?

GRASSLEY: Come on. Gee, whiz.

KAVANAUGH: The FBI does not reach - you know. You know this is - you know that's a phony question...

DURBIN: Well, here...

KAVANAUGH: ... because the FBI doesn't reach conclusions.

DURBIN: So let's - let's just...

KAVANAUGH: They just provide the 302s. 302s, so I can explain to people who don't know what that is, they just going and do what you're doing: ask questions and then type up a report. They don't reach the bottom line conclusion. You...

DURBIN: This morning - this morning, I asked Dr. Ford, I asked her about this incident where she ran into Mark Judge in Safeway, and she said, "Sure, I remember it." Six or eight weeks after this occurrence.

Well, someone at The Washington Post went in and took a look at Mr. Judge's book and has been able to - the one that he wrote about his addiction and his alcoholism - and they have narrowed it down, what they think was a period of time six or eight weeks after the event. And he would have been working at the Safeway at that point.

So the point I'm getting to is we at least can connect some dots here and get some information. Why would you resist that kind...

KAVANAUGH: Here's some (ph) dots.

DURBIN: ... of investigation? Why would you resist that kind of investigation?

KAVANAUGH: Senator, I - I welcome - I wanted the hearing last week.

DURBIN: I'm asking about the FBI investigation.

KAVANAUGH: They're - the committee figures out how to ask the questions, I'll do whatever. I've been on the phone multiple times with committee counsel. I'll talk to...

DURBIN: Judge Kavanaugh, will you support an FBI investigation...

KAVANAUGH: ... I'll do - I'll...

DURBIN: ... right now?

KAVANAUGH: ... I - I will do whatever the committee wants to...

DURBIN: Personally, do you think that's the best thing for us to do? You won't answer?

KAVANAUGH: ... Look, senator, I - I've - I've - I've said I wanted a hearing and I'd said I was welcome (ph) anything. I'm innocent. This thing was held - held when it could have been presented in the ordinary way. It could have been held and handled confidentially at first, which was what Dr. Ford's wishes were as I understand it. It wouldn't have caused this - like, destroyed my family like this - this effort has.

DURBIN: I think an FBI investigation will help all of us on both sides of the issue.

GRASSLEY: Senator Graham asked for the floor. But before he does, it seems to me that if you want to know something, you've got the witness right here to - to ask him. And secondly, if you want an FBI report, you can ask for it yourself. I've asked for FBI reports in the past, in the 38 years I've been in the Senate.

Senator Graham.

GRAHAM: Are you aware that at 9:23 on the night of July the 9th, the day you were nominated to the Supreme Court by President Trump, Senator Schumer said 23-minutes after your nomination, "I will oppose Judge Kavanaugh's nomination with everything I have, I have (sic) a bipartisan - and I hope a bipartisan majority will do the same. The stakes are simply too high for anything less." Well, if you weren't aware of it, you are now.

Did you meet with Senator Dianne Feinstein on August 20th?

KAVANAUGH: I did meet with Senator Feinstein...

GRAHAM: Did you know that her staff had already recommended a lawyer to Dr. Ford?

KAVANAUGH: ... I did not know that.

GRAHAM: Did you know that her and her staff had this - allegations for over 20 days?

KAVANAUGH: I did not know that at the time.

GRAHAM: If you wanted a 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?

KAVANAUGH: No.

GRAHAM: I cannot imagine what you and your family have gone through.

Boy, you all 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's as much of a victim as you are. God, I hate to say it because these have been my friends. But let me tell you, when it comes to this, you're looking for a fair process? You came to the wrong town at the wrong time, my friend. Do you consider this a job interview?

KAVANAUGH: If (ph) the advice and consent role is like a job interview.

GRAHAM: Do you consider that you've been through a job interview?

KAVANAUGH: I've been through a process of advice and consent under the Constitution, which...

GRAHAM: Would you say you've been through hell?

KAVANAUGH: I - I've been through hell and then some.

GRAHAM: This is not a job interview.

KAVANAUGH: Yes.

GRAHAM: This is hell.

KAVANAUGH: This - this...

GRAHAM: This is going to destroy the ability of good people to come forward because of this crap. Your high school yearbook - you have interacted with professional women all your life, not one accusation.

You're supposed to be Bill Cosby when you're a junior and senior in high school. And all of a sudden, you got over it. It's been my understanding that if you drug women and rape them for two years in high school, you probably don't stop.

Here's my understanding, if you lived a good life people would recognize it, like the American Bar Association has, the gold standard. His integrity is absolutely unquestioned. He is the very circumspect in his personal conduct, harbors no biases or prejudices. He's entirely ethical, is a really decent person. He is warm, friendly, unassuming. He's the nicest person - the ABA.

The one thing I can tell you should be proud of - Ashley, you should be proud of this - that you raised a daughter who had the good character to pray for Dr. Ford.

To my Republican colleagues, if you vote no, you're legitimizing the most despicable thing I have seen in my time in politics. You want this seat? I hope you never get it.

I hope you're on the Supreme Court, that's exactly where you should be. And I hope that the American people will see through this charade. And I wish you well. And I intend to vote for you and I hope everybody who's fair-minded will.

GRASSLEY: Senator Whitehouse.

WHITEHOUSE: Should we let things settle a little bit after that?

GRASSLEY: If you want to - we'll take a 60-second break.

WHITEHOUSE: No, I'm good.

GRASSLEY: OK. Go ahead.

WHITEHOUSE: I'm good.

One of the reasons, Mr. Kavanaugh, that we are looking at the yearbook is that it is relatively consistent in time with the events at issue here and because it appears to be your words. Is it, in fact, your words on your yearbook page?

KAVANAUGH: We - we submitted things to the editors and I believe they took them. I don't know if they changed things or not, but.

WHITEHOUSE: You're not aware of any changes? As far as you know...

KAVANAUGH: I don't - I'm not aware one way...

WHITEHOUSE: ... these are your words?

KAVANAUGH: ... I'm not aware one way or the other, but I'm not going to sit here and contest that. Have at it, if you want to go through my yearbook.

WHITEHOUSE: Yes, I'm - I'm actually interested. You know, lawyers should be working off of common terms and understand the words that we're using. I think that's a pretty basic principle among lawyers, wouldn't you agree?

KAVANAUGH: It is. If you're worried about my yearbook, have at, senator.

WHITEHOUSE: Let's look at, "Beach Week Ralph Club - Biggest Contributor," what does the word Ralph mean in that?

KAVANAUGH: That probably refers to throwing up. I'm known to have a weak stomach and I always have. In fact, the last time I was here, you asked me about having ketchup on spaghetti. I always have had a weak stomach.

DURBIN: I don't know that I asked about ketchup on spaghetti, but...

KAVANAUGH: You - you didn't, someone did. And...

WHITEHOUSE: OK.

KAVANAUGH: ... this is well-known. Anyone who's known me, like a lot of these people behind me - known me my whole life - know, you know. I got a weak stomach, whether it's with beer or with spicy food or anything.

WHITEHOUSE: So the vomiting that you reference in the Ralph Club reference, related to the consumption of alcohol?

KAVANAUGH: Senator, I was at the top of my class academically, busted my butt in school. Captain of the varsity basketball team. Got in Yale College. When I got into Yale College, got into Yale Law School. Worked my tail off.

WHITEHOUSE: And did the world "ralph" you used in your yearbook...

(CROSSTALK)

KAVANAUGH: I already - I already answered...

WHITEHOUSE: ... refer (ph) to alcohol?

KAVANAUGH: ... the question. If you're...

WHITEHOUSE: Did it relate to alcohol? You haven't answered that.

KAVANAUGH: I like beer. I like beer. I don't know if you do...

WHITEHOUSE: OK.

KAVANAUGH: ... do you like beer, Senator, or not?

WHITEHOUSE: Um, next...

KAVANAUGH: What do you like to drink?

WHITEHOUSE: Next one is...

KAVANAUGH: Senator, what do you like to drink?

WHITEHOUSE: ... Judge, have you - I don't know if it's "boufed" or "boofed" - how do you pronounce that?

KAVANAUGH: That refers to flatulence. We were 16.

(LAUGHTER)

WHITEHOUSE: OK. And so when your friend Mark Judge said the same - put the same thing in his yearbook page back to you, he had the same meaning? It was flatulence?

KAVANAUGH: I don't know what he did, but that's my recollection. We want to talk about flatulence at age 16 on a yearbook page, I'm - I'm game.

WHITEHOUSE: You mentioned, I think, the Renate or Renata - I don't know how you pronounce that - that's a proper name of an individual you know?

KAVANAUGH: Renata.

WHITEHOUSE: Renata. It's spelled with an "E" at the end, R-E-N-A-T-E. Is that...

KAVANAUGH: Correct.

WHITEHOUSE: OK. And then after that is the word "alumnius." What does the word "alumnius" mean in that context?

KAVANAUGH: I explained that in my opening statement. We - she was a great friend of ours. We - a bunch of us went to dances with her. She hung out with us as a group. The media circus that has been generated by this, thought (ph) and reported that it referred to sex. It did not. Never had any - as she herself said on the record, any kind of sexual interaction with her.

And I'm sorry, how that's been misinterpreted and sorry about that, as I explained in my opening statement. Because she's a good person. And to have her named dragged through this hearing is a joke. And, really, an embarrassment.

WHITEHOUSE: Devil's triangle?

KAVANAUGH: Drinking game.

WHITEHOUSE: How's it played?

KAVANAUGH: Three glasses in a triangle.

WHITEHOUSE: And?

KAVANAUGH: You ever played quarters?

WHITEHOUSE: No (ph).

KAVANAUGH: OK. It's a quarters game.

WHITEHOUSE: Anne Dougherty's?

KAVANAUGH: As you can tell from my calendar, she had a party on the Fourth of July in the beach in Delaware.

WHITEHOUSE: And there are, like, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven F's in front of the Fourth of July. What does that signify, if anything?

KAVANAUGH: One of our friends, Squi, when he said the F word starting at a young age, had kind of a wind-up to the F word. Kind of a "ffff."

(LAUGHTER)

And then the word would come out. And when we were 15, we thought that was funny. And it became an inside joke for the - how he would say, "Ffff" - and I won't repeat it here. For the F word.

WHITEHOUSE: Referring to Georgetown versus Louisville and...

KAVANAUGH: you want - you want any more on the Fs?

WHITEHOUSE: No. Orioles versus Red Sox. And both, you respond, "Who won anyway?" Or "Who won that game anyway?" Should we draw any conclusion that a loss of recollection associated with alcohol was involved in you not knowing who won the games that you attended?

KAVANAUGH: No. First of all, the Georgetown-Louisville was watching it on TV, a party. And the...

WHITEHOUSE: That's not inconsistent with drinking and not remembering what happened.

KAVANAUGH: I'm aware. And the point of both was, we in essence were having a party and didn't pay attention to the game even though the game was the excuse we had for getting together.

I think that's very common. I don't know if you've been to a Super Bowl party for example, Senator, and not paid attention to the game and just hung out with your friends. I don't know if you've done that or not. But that's what we were referring to in those - those two occasions.

GRASSLEY: Senator Cornyn?

CORNYN: Judge, I can't think of a more embarrassing scandal for the United States Senate since the McCarthy hearings.

When the comment was about the cruelty of the process toward the people involved, and the question was asked: Have you no sense of decency?

And I'm afraid we've lost that, at least for the time being. Do you understand you've been accused of multiple crimes?

KAVANAUGH: I'm - I'm painfully aware, for my family and me to read about this breathless reporting.

CORNYN: Of course, the - the sexual assault that Dr. Ford claims that you've denied. Then the claims of Ms. Ramirez, that not even The New York Times would report because it couldn't corroborate it.

And then Stormy Daniels' lawyer released a bombshell, accusing you of gang rape. All of those are crimes, are they not?

KAVANAUGH: They are. And I'm - I'm never going to get my reputation back. It's - it - my life is totally and permanently altered.

CORNYN: Well Judge - Judge, don't give up.

KAVANAUGH: I'm not giving up. I...

CORNYN: The American - the American people - the American people are listening to this, and they will make their decision and I think you'll come out on the right side of that decision.

KAVANAUGH: Well, I will always be a good person and try to be a good judge, whatever happens. But...

CORNYN: So this is not a job interview. You've been accused of a crime. If you have lied to the committee and the investigators, that is a crime in and of itself, correct?

KAVANAUGH: That is correct.

CORNYN: So in order to vote against your nomination, we would have to conclude that you are a serial liar.

KAVANAUGH: Yeah.

CORNYN: And you will have exposed yourself to legal jeopardy in the way - in your interaction with this committee and the investigators, isn't that correct?

KAVANAUGH: That's - that's my understanding.

CORNYN: You talked in your interview on - with Martha MacCallum the other night about a fair process. Some of my colleagues across the aisle say, "Well, the burden is not on the accuser because this is a job interview," the burden is on you.

But you said you weren't there and it didn't happen. It's impossible for you to prove a negative. So I would just suggest that you have been accused of a crime and that a fair process, under the United States Constitution, under our notion of fair play, means that the people who make an accusation against you have to come forward with some evidence.

Isn't that part of a fair process?

KAVANAUGH: Yes, sir, Senator.

CORNYN: And part of that means that if you're going to make an allegation, there needs to be corroboration. In other words, you're not guilty because somebody makes an accusation against you in this country. We're not a police state. We don't give the government that kind of power.

We insist that those charges be proven by competent evidence. And I know we're not in a court. I've told my colleagues, if we were in court, half of them would be in contempt of court.

But you have been accused of a crime, and I believe fundamental notions of fair play and justice and our constitutional system require that if somebody's going to make that accusation against you, then they need to come forward with some corroboration, not just allegations.

And you're right to be angry about the delays in your ability to come here and protect your good name, because in the interim, it just keeps getting worse. It's not Dr. Ford. It this story that not even the New York Times would report, the allegation of Ms. Ramirez. And then Stormy Daniels' lawyer comes up with this incredible story, accusing you of the most sordid and salacious conduct. It's outrageous, and you're right to be angry.

But this is your chance to tell your story, and I hope you have a chance to tell us everything you want tell us. But the burden is not on you to disprove the allegations made. The burden under our system, when you accuse somebody of criminal conduct, is on the person making the accusation.

Now, I understand we're not - this isn't a trial, like I said, but I just wanted to make sure that we understood. It's hard to reconstruct what happened 36 years ago, and I appreciate what you said about Dr. Ford, that perhaps she has had an incident at some point in her life, and you are sympathetic to that, and...

But your reputation is on the line, and I hope people understand the gravity of the charges made against you, and what a fair process looks like.

GRASSLEY: Senator Klobuchar?

KLOBUCHAR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Judge, we're talking here about decency, and - and you understand, we have this constitutional duty to advise and consent. And for me, when this evidence came forward, I decided that I needed to look at this, and I needed to find out about it, and I needed to ask you questions about it, as well as others that were involved.

So again, I'm not going to take quite the same approach as my colleagues here and talk about Don McGahn, or any of this. Why don't you just ask the president? Mrs. - Dr. Ford can't do this. We clearly haven't been able to do this. But just ask the president to reopen the FBI investigation.

KAVANAUGH: I think the committee is doing - you're doing the investigation. I'm here to answer your questions...

KLOBUCHAR: No.

KAVANAUGH: ... and I should say one thing, Senator Klobuchar, which is I appreciate our meeting together, and I appreciate how you handled the prior hearing, and I have a lot of respect for you.

KLOBUCHAR: Well, thank you. All of that aside, here's the thing: you could actually just get this open so that we can talk to these witnesses, and the FBI can do it instead of us. And you've come before us, but we have people like Mark Judge, who Dr. Ford says was a witness to this. We have this polygraph expert that my colleagues were raising issues about the polygraph. We would like to have that person come before us. And I just think if we could open this up...

KAVANAUGH: I don't mean to - I don't mean to interrupt, but I guess I am. But Mark - Mark Judge has provided sworn statement saying this didn't happen, and that I never did or would do...

KLOBUCHAR: But we would like the FBI to be able to follow up and ask him questions. You know, we talked about past nomination processes, and you talked those, and I note that President George Bush, in the Anita Hill / Justice Thomas case, he opened up the FBI investigation and let questions being asked, and I think it was helpful for people. So was his decision reasonable?

KAVANAUGH: I - I don't know the circumstances of that. What I know, Senator, is I'm (inaudible)

KLOBUCHAR: But you - that it - he - he just - the circumstances are that he opened up the investigation so the FBI could ask some questions.

KAVANAUGH: I - I'm...

KLOBUCHAR: That's what he - he opened up the background check.

KAVANAUGH: I'm here to answer questions about my yearbook, or about, you know, what I...

KLOBUCHAR: OK, that's - I...

KAVANAUGH: ... my sports, or, you know, summer basketball...

KLOBUCHAR: OK. I'm not going to ask about the yearbook.

So most people have done some drinking in high school and college, and many people even struggle with alcoholism and binge drinking. My own dad struggled with alcoholism most of his life, and he got in trouble for it, and there were consequences. He is still in A.A. at age 90, and he's sober, and in his words, he was pursued by grace, and that's how he got through this.

So in your case, you have said, here and other places, that you never drank so much that you didn't remember what happened. But yet, we have heard - not under oath, but we have heard your college roommate say that you did drink frequently. These are in news reports. That you would sometimes be belligerent. Another classmate said it's not credible for you to say you didn't have memory lapses. So drinking is one thing.

KAVANAUGH: I don't think - I - I actually don't think that's - the second quote's correct. On the first quote, if you wanted, I provided some material that's still redacted about the situation with the freshman year roommate, and I don't really want to repeat that in a public hearing, but just so you know, there were three people in a room, Dave White, Jamie Roach (ph) and me, and it was a contentious situation where Jamie did not like Dave White. I was - at all, and I'm in this...

KLOBUCHAR: OK, I - I just...

KAVANAUGH: So Dave - so Dave White came back from - from home one weekend, and Jamie Roach had moved all his furniture...

KLOBUCHAR: OK. OK.

KAVANAUGH: ... out into the - out into the courtyard.

KLOBUCHAR: OK.

KAVANAUGH: And so he walks in, and so that's your source on that, so there's some old...

KLOBUCHAR: OK, so drinking is one thing.

KAVANAUGH: There - and there's much more. Look at the redacted portion of what I said. I don't want to repeat that in a public hearing.

KLOBUCHAR: All right. I will. I will.

KAVANAUGH: (inaudible)

KLOBUCHAR: Could I just ask one question?

KAVANAUGH: ... redacted information about that.

KLOBUCHAR: OK. Drinking is one thing, but the concern is about truthfulness, and in your written testimony, you said sometimes you had too many drinks. Was there ever a time when you drank so much that you couldn't remember what happened, or part of what happened the night before?

KAVANAUGH: No, I - no. I remember what happened, and I think you've probably had beers, Senator, and - and so I...

KLOBUCHAR: So you're saying there's never been a case where you drank so much that you didn't remember what happened the night before, or part of what happened.

KAVANAUGH: It's - you're asking about, you know, blackout. I don't know. Have you?

KLOBUCHAR: Could you answer the question, Judge? I just - so you - that's not happened. Is that your answer?

KAVANAUGH: Yeah, and I'm curious if you have.

KLOBUCHAR: I have no drinking problem, Judge.

KAVANAUGH: Yeah, nor do I.

KLOBUCHAR: OK, thank you.

GRASSLEY: Before I go to Senator Hatch, since this FBI thing keeps coming up all the time, let's get back to basics. First of all, anybody, including any senator that's brought up this issue, could ask for an FBI investigation. What the FBI does is gather information for the White House, then the file's sent to the committee for us to make our own evaluations. We're capable of making our own determination about the accuracy of any of those allegations. The FBI has put out a statement over, now I suppose it's a month ago, clearly stating this matter is closed, as far as - as the - the letter being sent to them, and there is no federal crime to investigate.

If Senator - Senate Democrats hope for the FBI to draw any conclusions on this matter, I'm going to remind you what Joe Biden said. Now, I said this my statement, but maybe - maybe people aren't listening when I say, and maybe they won't even hear this.

Joe Biden, quote, "The next person who refers to an FBI report as being worth anything obviously doesn't understand anything. The FBI explicitly does not - does not, in this or any other case, reach a conclusion. Period... They say 'He said, she said, and they said.' Period. So when people waive an FBI report before you," or even bring it up now as something prospectively - I'm not - that wasn't in his quote, "understand they do not, they do not, they do not reach conclusions... they do not make recommendations."

Senator Hatch.

WHITEHOUSE: Mr. Chairman?

(UNKNOWN): We need a break.

HATCH (?): No, don't take a break.

WHITEHOUSE: Mr. Chairman?

HATCH (?): Let me do this.

WHITEHOUSE: May I say for the record that, actually, we have asked? You said that nobody's asked the FBI, or we could ask the FBI. I actually have. I think others have. And I think that the issue is that part of what an FBI report does...

GRASSLEY: You want to take a break (ph)?

WHITEHOUSE: ... is to investigate and seek either corroborating or exculpatory evidence. It's not so much the conclusion that it draws as the breadth of the evidence that is sought out through the investigation and the difference between what somebody might say to an FBI agent when they're being examined, and for instance Mr. Judge's letter signed by his lawyer sent in. It's a - it's just a different thing.

And I believe still that this is the first background investigation in the history of background investigations that hasn't been reopened when new credible derogatory information was raised about the subject, about the nominee. So I, you know, I just didn't want to let the point you made stand without...

GRASSLEY: Well, I'll - I'll...

WHITEHOUSE: ... referencing the - what we had tried to do.

GRASSLEY: ... Pardon me, but I'll just add to the point you made. The letter was sent to the FBI. The FBI sent it to the White House with a letter saying the case is closed.

We're taking a break now, for senator - we're taking a break now.

(RECESS)

GRASSLEY: Judge, are you ready?

KAVANAUGH: I am ready. And can I say one thing?

GRASSLEY: Yes.

KAVANAUGH: Just going to say I started my last colloquy by saying to Senator Klobuchar how much I respect her and respected what she did at the last hearing. And she asked me a question at the end that I responded by asking her a question and I didn't - sorry, I did that. This is a tough process. I'm sorry about that.

KLOBUCHAR: I appreciate that. I - I would like to add, when you have a parent that's a alcoholic, you're pretty careful about drinking.

And - and the second thing is I was truly just trying to get the bottom of the facts and the evidence. And I, again, believe we do that by opening up the FBI investigation, and I would call it a background check instead of investigation. Thank you.

KAVANAUGH: Appreciate that.

GRASSLEY: Senator Hatch.

HATCH: Well, thank you.

Judge, welcome, we're happy to have you here. My friend from - I'd just like to say a few words - my friend from Arizona emphasized yesterday that we have before us today two human beings, Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh. They deserve - each of you deserves to be treated fairly and respectfully.

We tried to do that with Dr. Ford earlier and I think we succeeded. It's important that we treat Judge Kavanaugh fairly now. And it remains to be seen how that's going to work out.

Judge Kavanaugh has been a federal judge for 12 years. And he's been a great federal judge on the second-highest court in the nation. He's earned a reputation for fairness and decency. His clerks love him. His students he teaches in law school as well, his students love him. His colleagues love him. This man is not a monster, nor is he what has been represented here in these hearings.

We're talking today about Judge Kavanaugh's conduct in high school - and even then, and as a freshman in college, I guess, as well. Serious allegations have been raised. If Judge Kavanaugh committed sexual assault, he should not serve on the Supreme Court; I think we'd all agree with that.

HATCH: But the circus atmosphere that has been created since my Democratic colleagues first leaked Dr. Ford's allegations to the media two weeks ago - after sitting on them for six weeks, I might add - has brought us the worst in our politics. It certainly has brought us no closer to the truth. Anonymous letters with no name and no return address are now being treated as national news. Porn star lawyers with facially implausible claims are driving the news cycle.

I hate to say this, but this is worse than Robert Bork, and I didn't think it could get any worse than that. This is worse than Clarence Thomas. I didn't think it could get any worse than that. This is a national disgrace, the way you're being treated.

And in the middle of it all, we have Judge Kavanaugh, a man who until two weeks ago was a pillar of the legal community. There's been no whisper of misconduct by him in the time he's been a judge.

What we have are uncorroborated, unsubstantiated claims from his teenage years. Claims that every alleged eyewitness has either denied or failed to corroborate.

I do not mean to minimize the seriousness of the claims. Yes, they've been serious claims, but the search for truth has to involve more than bare assertions. Like Dr. Ford, Judge Kavanaugh deserves fair treatment. He was an immature high schooler. So were we all. That he wrote or said stupid things sometimes does not make him a sexual predator.

I understand the desire of my colleagues to tear down this man at any costs. I do understand it. But let's at least be fair and look at the facts or the absence thereof. Guilt by association is wrong. Immaturity does not equal criminality. That Judge Kavanaugh drank in high school or college does not make him guilty of every terrible thing that he's recently been accused of.

A lifetime of respect and equal treatment ought to mean something when assessing allegations that are flatly inconsistent with the course of a person's entire adult life.

With those comments, Judge, I'd just like to ask you a few questions if I can about how - and if you can be short in your answers, it'd help me get through a bunch of them - about how this process has unfolded. When did you first learn of Dr. Ford's allegations against you?

KAVANAUGH: It was a week ago Sunday when - the Washington Post Story.

HATCH: Isn't that amazing? Did the ranking member raise these allegations in your one-on-one meeting with her last month?

KAVANAUGH: She did not.

HATCH: Did the ranking member raise them at your public hearing earlier this month?

KAVANAUGH: No.

HATCH: Did the ranking member raise them at the closed session that followed the public hearing?

KAVANAUGH: She was not there.

HATCH: Did the ranking member or any of her colleagues raise them in the 1,300 written questions that were submitted to you following the hearing?

KAVANAUGH: No.

HATCH: When was the first time that the ranking member or her staff asked you about these allegations?

KAVANAUGH: Today.

HATCH: When did you first hear of Ms. Ramirez's allegations against you?

KAVANAUGH: In the last - in the period since then, the New Yorker story.

HATCH: Did the Ranking Member or any of her colleagues or any of their staffs ask you about Ms. Ramirez's allegations before they were leaked to the press?

KAVANAUGH: No.

HATCH: When was the first time that the ranking member or any of her colleagues or any of their staff asked you about Ms. Ramirez's allegations?

KAVANAUGH: Today.

HATCH: I think it's a disgrace, between you and me.

GRASSLEY: Senator Coons.

COONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Judge Kavanaugh, today's hearing is about Dr. Ford's serious allegations about a sexual assault. You have unequivocally denied those claims. But we're here today to assess her credibility and yours, and in our previous vigorous exchanges in the previous confirmation hearing rounds (ph), I - I found that your answers, at times vigorously defended but at other times struck me as evasive or not credible on key issues. And it's against that backdrop that I'm seeking to assess your credibility today.

You said in your opening that rule of law means taking allegations seriously, and I agree with that. It brings me no joy to question you on these topics today, but I do think they're serious and I think they are worthy of our attention.

So let me, if I can, return to a line of questioning my colleague was on before, which was about whether you've ever gotten aggressive while drinking or forgotten an evening after drinking.

KAVANAUGH: Those are two different questions. I've already answered the second one. As to the first, I think the answer to that is basically no. I don't know really what you mean by that, like, what - what are you talking about?

COONS: Well, the - the reason I...

KAVANAUGH: I guess. I mean, I - I don't mean it that way, but "no" is the basic answer, unless you're talking about something where - that I - I'm not aware that you're going to ask about.

COONS: The - the reason I'm asking, we've had a very brief period of time to weigh outside evidence and I'll join my colleagues in saying I wish we had more evidence in front of us today to weigh. Do you remember Liz Swisher, a college classmate of yours from Yale?

KAVANAUGH: First, on your point about the outside evidence, you know, all four witnesses said...

COONS: Let - let me focus, I'm trying to get this question if I (ph) - if I could.

KAVANAUGH: I know, but you made a - you made a point, and I just want to reemphasize: all four witnesses who were allegedly at the event have said it didn't happen, including Dr. Ford's longtime friend, Ms. Keyser, who said she's never...

COONS: That's right, and if Mark Judge - if Mark Judge were in front of us today to question, we'd be able to assess his credibility.

KAVANAUGH: But he's (inaudible)...

COONS: Let me just get through - this through if I can, Your Honor. Liz Swisher is a college classmate. She's now a medical doctor. And I'm quoting from a recent interview she gave. She said, Brett Kavanaugh drank more than a lot of people. He'd end up slurring his words, stumbling. It's not credible for him to say he's had no memory lapses in the nights he drank to excess. I know because I drank with him.

How should we assess that against (inaudible)

KAVANAUGH: She then goes on, if you - if you kept reading, and says she actually can't point to any specific instance like that.

COONS: The quote that jumped out at me was, "Brett was a sloppy drunk, and I know because I drank with him." There's also, in a separate setting...

KAVANAUGH: I don't think that - I don't - I do not think that's a fair characterization, and Chris Dudley's quoted in that article, and I would refer you to what Chris Dudley said. I spent more time with Chris Dudley in college than just about anyone, and I would refer you to what he said.

COONS: In other reporting, as I'm sure you know, a college classmate described you as relatively shy but said that when you drank you could be aggressive or even belligerent, and your roommate, as I think you discussed with Senator Klobuchar...

KAVANAUGH: (inaudible)

COONS: ...said you were frequently drunk. (inaudible)

KAVANAUGH: Yes, and that - and that roommate - that was freshman year roommate.

COONS: Yes.

KAVANAUGH: And there was contention between him and the third person. There were three of us in a small room, and you should look at what I said in the redacted portion of the - of the transcript about him, and you should assess his credibility with that in mind.

COONS: Put yourself in our shoes for a moment if you would, Judge, and I know that's asking a lot of you in this setting. But suppose you'd gone through a process to select someone for an incredibly important job in a position, you had a lot of qualified candidates, and as you're finishing the hiring process you learn of a credible allegation that, if true, would be disqualifying.

Wouldn't you either take a step back and conduct a thorough investigation or move to a different candidate? And why not agree to a one-week pause to allow the FBI to investigate all these allegations and allow you an opportunity a week from now to have the folks present in front of us for us to assess their credibility and for us to either clear your name or resolve these allegations by moving to a different nominee?

KAVANAUGH: All four witnesses who are alleged to be at the event said it didn't happen. Including Dr. Ford's long-time friend, Ms. Keyser, who said that she didn't know me and that she does not recall ever being at a party with me with or without Dr. Ford.

COONS: What I've struggled with, Judge Kavanaugh, is the absence of a fair, federal law enforcement driven, nonpartisan process to question the various people who I think are critical to this. My concern, should you move forward, is what it will do to the credibility of the court and how that may well hang over your service, I understand -

KAVANAUGH: Look sir, my reputation has been -

COONS: Your concern about this but I wish you would join us in calling for an FBI investigation for one week when you clear or confirm some of these allegations.

KAVANAUGH: When you say a week delay, you know how long the last 10 days have been?

COONS: Probably an eternity.

KAVANAUGH: Yes.

COONS: But in the Judge Thomas confirmation hearing (ph) -

KAVANAUGH: For us everyday -

COONS: It was a four day delay.

KAVANAUGH: has been a lifetime. And you know, yes, and it's been investigated and all four witnesses say it didn't happen. And they've said it under penalty of felony, and I've produced my calendars which show, you know, a lot - that's important evidence and you act like - I mean, the last 10 days I asked for a hearing the day after the allegation.

GRASSLEY: Before I call on Senator Lee, I want to emphasize something here that talking about doing something without a enough time - we had 45 days between July 30 and September 13, I believe it is, when we could have been investigating this and in regard to this candidate if you take the average of 65 to 70 days between the time that a person is announced by the president, and the Senate votes on it - is about 65 to 70 days and here we are at about 85 to 90 days.

So there's plenty of time put in on this nomination. Senator Lee - oh no, wait a minute - I got one other thing I wanted to - everybody else has been putting letters in the record. I have a letter here from 65 women who knew Judge Kavanaugh between the years '79 and '83 - the years he attended Georgetown Prep High School.

These women wrote to the committee because they know Judge Kavanaugh and they know that the allegations raised by Dr. Ford are completely, totally inconsistent with his character. These 65 women know him through social events and church, many have remained close friends with him - here's what they say partly quoting the letter.

"Through the more than 35 years we've known him, Brett has stood out for his friendship, character and integrity. He has always treated women with decency and respect. That was true in high school and it remains true to this day." In closing they wrote, "Judge Kavanaugh, has always been a good person," so without objection I put it in the record - Senator Lee?

LEE: Judge Kavanaugh, you've been cooperative at every stage of this investigation both your background investigation and the investigation conducted by this committee, is that correct?

KAVANAUGH: That is correct, sir.

LEE: It's also correct that you yourself do not control the FBI or when it conducts an investigation, you are a nominee, you're not tasked with the job of deciding who, when, whether or how conduct an investigation?

KAVANAUGH: That's correct.

LEE: But at every moment when either we or prior to the committee taking jurisdiction over it, the FBI has asked you questions - you've been attentive and you've been responsive, isn't that right?

KAVANAUGH: That is correct, throughout my career.

LEE: I have colleagues today who have repeatedly asked for an FBI investigation, and there are some ironies in this. Ironies that ascend at least two levels. In the first place, at least one of my colleagues - at least one of them had access to this information many, many weeks before anyone else did - had the ability and I believe the moral duty and obligation to report those facts to the FBI, at which point they could have and would have been investigated by the FBI.

And that could have been handled in such a way that didn't turn this in to a circus. One that has turned your life upside down, and that of your family - and the life of Dr. Ford and her family upside down. I consider this most unfortunate given that this was entirely within the control of at least one of my Democratic colleagues to do this.

The second level of irony here is that while calling repeatedly for an investigation by the FBI, an investigation over which you have no ability to control, by the way - an investigation you have no authority to call for. While calling for an investigation we're in the middle of a conversation that involves questions to you.

So I ask my Democratic colleagues, if you have questions for Judge Kavanaugh, ask him. He's right here. If that's really what you want is the truth, ask him questions right now. If you have questions of other witnesses, then for the love of all that is sacred and holy - participate in the committee investigations that have been going on, as you have not been participating with the committee staff investigating the outside witnesses.

If someone really were interested in the truth this is what they would do. They would participate in the investigation, and when we have a committee investigation, a committee hearing with live witnesses - they would talk about that rather than something else they wish they were having in front of them.

If what they want is a search for the truth, then now is their choice. If on the other hand what they want to do is delay this until after the election - which at least one of my colleagues on the Democratic side as acknowledged, then that might be what they would do. Finally I want to point out that there is significant precedent from our former Chairman of this committee, Chairman Joe Biden.

During the Clarence Thomas hearings, nearly three decades ago Chairman Biden made some interesting observations about FBI reports and their role in this process. Here's what he said, "the next person who refers to an FBI report as being worth anything - obviously doesn't understand anything. The FBI explicitly does not in this, or any other case, reach a conclusion. Period. Period."

Those are his dual periods, not mine, I continue the quote, "The reason why we cannot rely on the FBI report - you would not like it if we did, because it is inconclusive," so when people wave an FBI report before you, understand they do not - they do not - they do not reach conclusions. They do not make, as my friend points out more accurately, they do not make recommendations.

In other words, the role of the FBI is to flag issues, those issues have been flagged. Sadly, in this case they were flagged - not as they should have been. Not in the timing in which they should have been.

And therefore they couldn't have been addressed in the manner that would have preserved a lot more dignity for you, for your family and for Dr. Ford and her family. They were instead held out until the final moment. I consider that most unfortunate, and for that, on behalf of this committee, I extend to you my most profound sympathies and my most profound sympathies to Dr. Ford and her family as well.

SASSE: Mr. Chairman, since we don't have enough slots for everyone could I have the last minute of Senator Lee, so that Senator Kennedy can be recognized? Judge, we did 38 hours in public with you. Did we have any private hearings with you?

KAVANAUGH: Yes.

SASSE: Was that a fun time for you? When people - Senators could ask questions that are awkward or uncomfortable about potential alcoholism, potential gambling addiction, credit card debt, if your buddies floated you money to buy baseball tickets - did you enjoy that time we spend in here late one night?

KAVANAUGH: I'm always happy to cooperate with the committee.

SASSE: That's charitable. Were you ever asked about any sexual allegations when we had that time in here with you alone?

KAVANAUGH: No.

SASSE: Did the ranking member already have these allegations for, I guess, this would have been September 6 or 7, and the letter was written on July 30th?

A - a recommendation was made by ranking member or her staff to Dr. Ford - and, by the way, I think Dr. Ford is a victim, and I think she's been through hell and I'm very sympathetic to her - but, did the ranking member's staff, did we hear today, make a recommendation to hire a lawyer and she knew all that?

And yet we had a hearing here with you and none of these things were asked. But then, once the process was closed, once the FBI investigation was closed, once we were done meeting in public and in private, then this was sprung on you. I just want to make sure I have the dates correct, right?

Because we've got 35-plus days from all the time that this evidence was in the hands, recommendations were made to an outside lawyer. You could have handled all this, we could have had this conversation in private, in a way that didn't - not only do crap to his family, but do all - I yield my time.

KAVANAUGH: Thank...

SASSE: Trying to see if he could do math about 35 days. That was a little bit of a question.

KAVANAUGH: ... Thank you.

GRASSLEY: (OFF-MIKE) Senator Blumenthal.

BLUMENTHAL: Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon, Judge Kavanaugh. As a federal judge, you're aware of the jury instruction falsus in - in unibus (sic), falsus in omnibus, are you not? You're aware of that jury instruction?

KAVANAUGH: Yes, I'm - I am.

BLUMENTHAL: You know what it means?

KAVANAUGH: You can translate it for me, senator. You can do it better than I can.

BLUMENTHAL: False in one thing, false in everything. Meaning in jury instructions that we - some of us as prosecutors have heard many times, is - told the jury that they can disbelieve a witness if they find them to be false in one thing.

So the core of why we're here today really is credibility. Let me talk...

KAVANAUGH: But (ph) the core of why we're here is an allegation for which the four witnesses present have all said it didn't happen.

BLUMENTHAL: Let me ask you about Renate Dolphin who lives in Connecticut. She thought these yearbook statements were, quote, "Horrible, hurtful and simply untrue." end quote, because Renate Alumnus clearly implied some boast of sexual conquest. And that's the reason that you apologized to her, correct?

KAVANAUGH: That's false, speaking about the yearbook and she - she said she and I never had any sexual interaction. So your question...

BLUMENTHAL: But...

KAVANAUGH: ... your question is false and I've addressed that in the opening statement. And so, your question is based on a false premise and really does great harm to her. I don't know why you're bringing this up, frankly, doing great harm to her. By even bringing her name up here is really unfortunate.

BLUMENTHAL: Well, calling someone an alumnus in that way, was actually interpreted...

KAVANAUGH: Well, implying what you're implying what you're implying about...

BLUMENTHAL: ... by a number of your football friends at the time of boasting of sexual conquest. That's the reason that I'm bringing it up. And it conflicts...

KAVANAUGH: Yes. No, it's false.

BLUMENTHAL: ... with...

KAVANAUGH: You're implying that. Look what you're bringing up right now about her. Look what you're doing.

BLUMENTHAL: ... Mr. Chairman, I ask that...

KAVANAUGH: Don't bring her name up.

BLUMENTHAL: ... these interruptions not be subtracted from my time.

GRASSLEY: Very well (ph). Ask your question and then let...

KAVANAUGH: She's a great person. She's always been a great person. We never had any sexual interaction. By bringing this up, you're just - just dragging her through the mud. It's just unnecessary.

GRASSLEY: Proceed, Senator Blumenthal (ph).

BLUMENTHAL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You've made reference, judge, to a sworn statement I believe by Mark Judge to the committee. Is that correct?

KAVANAUGH: I made reference to what Mark Judge's lawyer sent to the committee.

BLUMENTHAL: You know (ph), it's not a sworn statement, is it?

KAVANAUGH: It would - under penalty of felony.

BLUMENTHAL: Well, it's a statement signed by his lawyer, Barbara Van Gelder. It is six cursory and conclusory sentences. Are you saying that that is a substitute for an investigation by the FBI or some interview by the FBI under oath?

KAVANAUGH: Under penalty of felony, he said that this kind of event didn't happen and that I never did or would have done something like that. And...

BLUMENTHAL: As a federal judge, you always want the best evidence don't you?

KAVANAUGH: ... Senator, he has said and all the witnesses present - look at Ms. Keyser's statement, she's

BLUMENTHAL: Let me...

KAVANAUGH: Dr. Ford's longtime friend...

BLUMENTHAL: ... let me move on to another topic. You've testified to this committee this morning - this afternoon, quote, "This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups."

Is it your testimony that the motivation of the courageous woman who sat where you did just a short time ago was revenge on behalf of a left-wing conspiracy or the Clintons?

KAVANAUGH: Senator, I said in my opening statement that she preferred confidentially. And her confidentially was - was destroyed by the actions of this committee.

BLUMENTHAL: Let me ask you this, in a speech that you gave at Yale you - you described, quote, "Falling out of the bus onto the front steps of the Yale Law School at 4:45 a.m." and...

KAVANAUGH: I wasn't...

BLUMENTHAL: ... then...

KAVANAUGH: ... I wasn't describing me. I organized...

BLUMENTHAL: ... trying to...

KAVANAUGH: ... Senator. Senator, let me finish, please. I organized a third-year end of school party for 30 of my classmates to rent a bus to go to Fenway Park in Boston, which was about a three-hour trip.

I bought all the tickets. You and I have discussed that before. I bought all the baseball tickets. I rented the bus. I organized the whole trip.

We went to Fenway Park. Roger Clemens was pitching for the Red Sox. We had a great time. George Brett was playing third base for the Royals - actually, he was playing left field that night. And he - and we went to the game, and got back, and then we went out. It was a great night of friendship.

BLUMENTHAL: I - I apologize for interrupting, judge, but I need to finish the quote before I ask you the question...

KAVANAUGH: I wasn't talking about...

BLUMENTHAL: ... The quote ends...

GRASSLEY: OK, we'll let (ph)...

BLUMENTHAL: ... the quote ends that you tried to, quote, "piece things back together," end quote, to recall what happened that night. Meaning...

KAVANAUGH: I know what happened.

BLUMENTHAL: ... Well, you...

GRASSLEY: Judge, let - will you quickly answer your question? And then I'm going to let him answer you...

KAVANAUGH: I know what - I know what happened that night.

BLUMENTHAL: I'll finish asking my question...

GRASSLEY: Please, go ahead...

BLUMENTHAL: ... your honor (ph).

GRASSLEY: ... but do it quickly.

BLUMENTHAL: Doesn't that imply to you that you had to piece things back together, you had to ask others what happened that night?

KAVANAUGH: No, it...

GRASSLEY: OK. You - you take your time now and answer the question.

KAVANAUGH: ... Yes.

GRASSLEY: And then, Senator Crapo.

KAVANAUGH: Definitely not. I know exactly what happened that night. It was a great night of fun. I was so happy that - it was great camaraderie. Everyone looks back fondly on the trip to Fenway Park. And then we went out together, a group of classmates. And I know exactly what happened the whole night. And I'm happy.

BLUMENTHAL: Judge, do you - do you believe Anita Hill?

GRASSLEY: Senator - Senator Crapo.

GRAHAM?: (OFF-MIKE) Time is up (ph). Your time is up (ph).

GRASSLEY: Senator Crapo.

CRAPO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And Judge Kavanaugh, first, I want to get into this whole question that's been bandied back and forth here, almost endlessly today, about the FBI investigation process.

Because I think it's - I want to follow up a little bit on what Senator Lee and Senator Sasse have referenced.

There's been a lot of talk here about, "We need an FBI investigation." In these processes, which you've been through a number of times now, when the FBI does a background check with regard to a nomination, could you quickly describe that for us? What does the FBI do?

KAVANAUGH: The FBI gathers statements from people who have information. They don't resolve credibility, they gather the information and the credibility determination is made by the ultimate fact-finder, which in this case is the United States Senate.

The committee, of course, hears gathered evidence.

CRAPO: And the FBI then gives that report to the White House, if I understand it? And the White House then transfers it to the Senate? Is that the - the...

(CROSSTALK)

KAVANAUGH: That's my understanding, yes.

CRAPO: ... control? And as you indicated, it does not do then - it's been said many times here today. The FBI does not make judgments, it gives the Senate committee information.

At that point in time, if I understand the process correctly, the Senate - the United States Senate Judiciary Committee - has legal authorities. If it receives information in an FBI report that it wants to further investigate, the Senate has legal authority to conduct a further investigation. Is that correct?

KAVANAUGH: That's my understanding.

CRAPO: And that is what has been referenced here many times, about - how some of these witnesses that were identified in the very late information that we received, have made statements that are under penalty of felony. That's a felony for lying to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

And as I understand it, what happens is, the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has authority under law to conduct those kinds of investigations, follows up on the FBI reports to finish out the investigation that it wants with regard to any information that it receives that needs further investigation. Is that your understanding of the process?

KAVANAUGH: That's my understanding, Senator.

CRAPO: Now in this case, there's been a lot of talk here today - and if I have time, I'll get into it. It looks like I'll run out of time - but in this case, there's a lot of concern by many that there was not so much an interest in an FBI investigation as there was in delay.

I'm not going to get to that unless I have time. I want to talk about what happened in the Senate committee's investigation. Because as I understand it - and this may be more of a question to the chairman - as soon as we received information, which was about 45 days after others on the committee received it, we conducted an investigation.

Is that correct, Mr. Chairman? I'm sorry to turn the questioning to you, but we began that legal Senate Judiciary Committee investigation.

GRASSLEY: Yes.

CRAPO: And that investigation involved our fully lawfully enabled investigators to conduct an investigation. And if I understand it correctly, the Democratic members of the committee refused to participate in that investigation.

GRASSLEY: Yes.

CRAPO: And so we have conducted the investigation. The very kinds of things that my colleagues on the other side are asking that we tell the FBI to do, this committee has the authority to do it and this committee does it, and this committee has done it.

Now there may be more demands for more interviews and more investigation. But when you, Judge Kavanaugh, have referenced the testimony that has come from those who were supposed - who were identified as - as being at this event, the testimony that has been received from them is information that has been received pursuant to a Senate committee investigation.

And I just think it should be made clear. I think there's been a lot of back and forth here about, "Oh, we're not getting information, we're not looking at this. You don't want to look into the investigation, you don't want to see what happened."

The reality is that this committee immediately and thoroughly investigated every witness that has been identified to us. And we have statements under penalty of felony from them.

So I just want to conclude with that. I got 45 seconds left, so I'm gonna just ask you one quick question. Again, on timing.

You had a meeting with Senator Feinstein on August 20th?

KAVANAUGH: It's my understanding, yeah. Well - I had a meeting, and that's my understanding of the date.

CRAPO: Of the date, yes. What was established earlier in testimony here today was that the ranking member's staff helped to - helped Dr. Ford to retain the Katz law firm on - sometime between August - or July 30th and August 7th.

So I just wanted you to clarify one more time. In the meeting that you had two weeks or more later, this issue was not raised with you?

(CROSSTALK)

KAVANAUGH: The issue was not raised.

CRAPO: All right. Thank you. My time is up.

GRASSLEY: We'll take a five-minute break now.

(RECESS)

GRASSLEY: Hirono.

HIRONO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Judge Kavanaugh, my colleagues on the other side are accusing the democrats of some sort of political conspiracy, but that's because they want us to distract - they want to distract us from what happened here this morning.

And what happened here this morning was that we heard from Dr. Christine Ford, who spoke to us, with quiet, raw, emotional power, about what happened to her. She said she was 100 percent certain that it was you who attacked her.

And she explained how she came forward, how she struggled with her decision, how she wanted the president to know so that he could make a better choice. So when you and my colleagues on the other accuse us of ambushing you with false charges, I think we all have to remember Dr. Ford's testimony and her courage.

Let me go back to something you just said in your opening. You said you thought, at your first hearing, the democrats were an embarrassment. We asked you a lot of questions in those days, and which of our questions do you think were an embarrassment?

I asked you about dissents you had written as a judge, an amicus brief you wrote as a lawyer and your knowledge of sexual harassment and abuse by your close friend and mentor, Alex Kozinski, all valid questions in the setting. They are valid because this is a job interview for one of the most important positions of trust in this country.

And earlier, you agreed that this process of advice and consent is really a job interview, certainly not a criminal trial. There's certainly no entitlement for you to be confirmed to the Supreme Court. Our credibility, character and candor of a nominee, things for us consider in your job interview?

KAVANAUGH: I think my whole life is subject to consideration.

HIRONO: Is that yes? Credibility, character and candor ...

KAVANAUGH: My whole life ...

HIRONO: ... are those specific traits that would be of interest to us, as we consider putting you, for life, on the highest court in the country? Credibility, character and candor.

KAVANAUGH: Of course. And as part of my whole life ...

HIRONO: Thank you. Is temperament also an important trait for us to consider?

KAVANAUGH: For 12 years, everyone who has appeared before me on the D.C. Circuit has praised my judicial temperament. That's why I have the well unanimous, well qualified rating from the American Bar Association and all of the people who have appeared before you...

HIRONO: So you agree that temperament is also an important factor for ...

KAVANAUGH: Yes. And the federal public defender, who testified to the committee, talked about how I had - was always open-minded and how I ruled in favor of unpopular defendants, how I was fair-minded. I think, universally, lawyers who've appeared before the D.C. ...

HIRONO: So the answer is yes. I am running out of time. You know, we only five minutes, so let me get to something else. In your Fox News interview, you said that you, quote, "always treated women with dignity and respect," end quote, and that in high school you never, quote, "drank so much that you couldn't remember what happened the night before." Would you say the same thing about your college life?

KAVANAUGH: Yes.

HIRONO: So I'd like to read your statements from people who knew you in college. And as ...

KAVANAUGH: Can I say one thing?

HIRONO: ... Senator Coons noted ...

KAVANAUGH: OK.

HIRONO: ... that James Roche said, your roommate, "Although Brett was normally reserved, he was a notably heavy drinker, even by the standards of the time. And he became aggressive and belligerent when he was drunk." So is your former college roommate lying?

KAVANAUGH: I would refer you to what I said in the sealed or redacted portion about his relationship with the other two roommates, and I'm going to leave it at that. I will say - Senator, you were asking about college.

I got into Yale Law School. That's the number one law school in the country. I had no connections there. I got there by busting my tail in college.

HIRONO: I feel insulted, as a Georgetown graduate.

(LAUGHTER)

KAVANAUGH: Excuse me?

HIRONO: But go on.

KAVANAUGH: I'm sorry. It's ranked number one, that doesn't mean it's number one.

(LAUGHTER)

KAVANAUGH: And you know, in college - two things. A, I studied. I was in cross-campus library every night, and B, I played basketball for the junior varsity. I tried out for the varsity. The first day I arrived on campus, we had captain's workouts.

I played basketball everyday, all throughout - and then as soon as the season was over, in late February, captain's workouts started again. I was obsessed with being ...

HIRONO: So you were not ...

KAVANAUGH: ... the best basketball player.

HIRONO: I only have 23 seconds. So you were not a "sloppy drunk," and so, your roommate was lying.

KAVANAUGH: I will refer you - I will refer you, again, to the redacted portion. I'll say, look at my academic record, and I don't usually to talk about myself this way, but in response to your - you know, I - I - I worked very hard in college, in my studies, and I also played basketball, I did sports and I also did socialize.

HIRONO: OK, wait. Excuse me. I know that the chairman is going to stop me, but I do have some other references from people who knew you, who say that you were not the basic (inaudible) ...

GRASSLEY: Your - your time is up.

HIRONO: ... but - hold on. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman.

GRASSLEY: Senator - Senator Tillis.

HIRONO: I would like to - Mr. Chairman, OK, I'll wait until we finish because I just want to enter some letters into the record.

GRASSLEY: Oh, yes. I wasn't ...

HIRONO: Could I do that?

GRASSLEY: ... clear that's what you were doing.

HIRONO: It's not a question. I could go on. But Mr. Chairman, I'd like to enter into the record four letters - one is, dated September 18, 2018, to you, from all of the democrats on this committee, another is - another is a letter, dated September 18, to Christopher Wray, the director of the FBI and Don McGahn, council to the president, signed by all the democrats on this committee, a September 21 letter signed by Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein to the president, and a September 26 letter signed by all the democrats on this committee, all requesting an FBI investigation because you did say all we have to do is ask.

And the implication being that if we ask, an investigation will happen and it certainly has not happened. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

GRASSLEY: Without objection, that will be included. Senator Tillis.

TILLIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Judge Kavanaugh, thank you again for being here. And I apologize for what you're going through right now. I can't imagine it. I've gone through a campaign and had a lot of smears, but it pales in comparison to what you've had to deal with.

I think one thing - one point that I'd like to make, from the onset. If we go back and review how this committee processes work, we've got a lot of work to do. We've had members take it on themselves to release committee confidential documents instead of respecting the process.

We've had an allegation held for nearly seven weeks that would've given us plenty of time to investigate, and then when we finally got the information, I invite everybody, particularly the American public, there is an investigation going on. And a lot of it's been documented.

There's a chronology on the website that says that each and every time an allegation was made, the staff followed up on it. And sadly, in several different instances, the democrats declined to participate. They listened in on at least one interview with you, didn't ask a single question.

If they wanted to find other leads and other things to do, why not ask, if you're really trying to get to the facts, if you're really trying to do your job to investigate? We're investigating, it's our job. I think in response to the ranking member's questions that Judge Kavanaugh said, "I'm here, you're asking me questions." But you know what?

When the committee staff, I assume, directed by the ranking member says, no, we're not going to ask questions to Judge Kavanaugh when he wanted to come in and clear his good name.

What are you really after? You may not be after the truth, maybe you are. Maybe you're after executing some sort of a political agenda. Maybe it's a mix of both.

But I think you've been treated unfairly and I'm amazed that after 32-hours of testimony, one and a half hours I sat in the room, that none of these questions came up when it was all fully known. Lawyered up, as a matter of fact.

I also want to go back to the comments this morning. I think I heard - and we can go back to the record if someone disagrees with me - I think I heard Dr. - Dr. Ford say that she wasn't aware of the fact that we said we'd come to California. We'd make it confidential. We'll completely depose and ask any questions you want to.

I think I heard her say she wasn't aware of that. I don't know where that came with counsel (ph) or whether counsel just neglected to tell her - her counsel.

But the fact of the matter is that offer was out there. We were moving heaven and earth and even moving the schedule to get to the schedule to get to the truth. We're doing an investigation. We're doing our level best.

I hope that the American people who are watching this will go out to the Senate Judiciary website and take a look at this chronology. Take a look at the lack of investigation on the part of the people who want the investigation. It doesn't make a lot of sense.

Every opportunity you have to go and question a witness. Every opportunity that we've had to find more truth, to find more facts, we've done it. It's documented. We've got sworn statements. We're doing our job. We're doing the committee work.

Judge Kavanaugh, I also have to say I believe you're a part of - you're - you're the first major target of a new strategy that's developed here. And I think you're right. I think it's just basically attack, attack, attack. It's not advise and consent; it's search and destroy.

And maybe one of the best evidence of this is one of the websites - one of the groups that are out there, attacking you and trying to create fodder and all of these red herrings, has already acquired a URL for the next judge that they're going to attack.

URL's right here. They've already purchased it. They're ready to go. This is the playbook. This is the way we're going to run this committee from this point forward? Take a look at it. I'll - I'll make sure we get it out on our website.

We've already got a stop another judge who hasn't been nominated URL, from the same people that are trying to mobilize people to attack you. There are some people here who may sincerely have concerns.

I would tell you to pound the table with your ranking member and the leadership on your side to say: why didn't we ask questions? Why did we listen in and differ? Why didn't we do our part of the investigation while this leader did everything he could to accommodate Dr. Ford and to run down every single lead that's been presented to us weeks after it was known to the minority?

I look forward to supporting your conformation. I believe that you're going to be on the bench. You know as Senator Cornyn said, these are allegations that can be pursued through the courts if they actually rise to a level to where they can be prosecuted. And everybody on the other side of this dais knows that that's not going to happen.

GRASSLEY: Senator Booker.

BOOKER: Judge Kavanaugh, you drank on weekdays as well in high school, not just weekends. Is that correct?

KAVANAUGH: Weekdays?

BOOKER: Yes, sir.

KAVANAUGH: I'd say that's rare. Are you talking about during the school year?

BOOKER: I'm - I'm talking about the calendars that you provided during these dates.

KAVANAUGH: Oh, that's in the - in the summer after a football work out when we went over to...

BOOKER: You drank on weekdays, yes or no, sir?

KAVANAUGH: ... In the summer when we went over to Timmy's house (ph) on July 1st, that would indicate, yes.

BOOKER: Yes, in other words, that - that July 1st reference to skis - went over for skis - that's brewskis, correct?

KAVANAUGH: And after Tobin's (ph)...

BOOKER: Sir - sir, I just need a yes or no. That - brewskis, right?

KAVANAUGH: ... Well, I need to explain context.

BOOKER: You just said sir that you drank on weekdays. That's all I was looking for.

KAVANAUGH: Well, no, that's - you're...

BOOKER: If I may - if I may ask - if I may ask the next question, sir? You said clearly on the record, I just want you to restate it that you never in your life, after drinking heavily to the point of throwing up - and, again, you said you had a weak stomach - you said you never had gaps in memories. Never had any loses what so ever. Never had foggy recollection about what happened. Is that correct, sir, yes or no?

KAVANAUGH: ... That's - that's what I said.

BOOKER: OK. Sir, you also said that this past two week - this past two weeks has been a two-week effort calculated and orchestrated as a political hit.

Are you saying that Dr. Ford's efforts to come forward, to prepare for the very difficult testimony she gave today, to travel to Washington, D.C. and tell us about her experience, have all been part of an orchestrated political hit? And - and are you basically calling her some kind of political operative?

KAVANAUGH: I've - I've said my family has no ill will toward Dr. Ford. She wanted confidentiality. Her confidentiality was blown by the actions of this committee. And it's caused - it's turned this into a circus...

BOOKER: So sir, let's just be clear. In other words, your - your - you have problems with the senators that are up here and how we conducted it; but, you're not saying in any way that she is a political pawn, political operative. You have sympathy for her. She is talking about a sexual assault. Is that correct?

KAVANAUGH: ... I said all allegations should be taken seriously, should listen to both sides...

BOOKER: OK. Do you - do you - do you wish...

KAVANAUGH: ... My family has no ill will toward her.

BOOKER: ... Thank you, sir. Do you wish that she never came forward?

KAVANAUGH: Senator, I did not do this. The witnesses...

BOOKER: That - that's not my question, sir. Could you try to answer my question, sir? Do you wish she never came forward?

KAVANAUGH: ... The witnesses who were there say it didn't happen.

BOOKER: OK, sir. Do you wish she would've just remained silent then?

KAVANAUGH: I wish - the witnesses who were there say it didn't happen. All allegations should be taken seriously.

BOOKER: So - so even if it's in the final days - days before a vote, if someone has a credible allegation of experience that they held for a long time, that person should be allowed to come forward. And in fact, as she said, it was her civic duty. You're not questioning her sense of civic duty are you?

KAVANAUGH: She did come forward and then the - then the - it was...

BOOKER: I know you have a lot of political animus, you've stated it very clearly towards my colleagues and I on this panel. What I - what I'm trying to get to the bottom of is you - you do not see her, specifically, as part of an orchestrated event...

KAVANAUGH: I...

BOOKER: ... she's not a political pawn.

KAVANAUGH: ... I don't know her. But I've also said that we bear no ill will toward her. She wanted confidentiality. This could have been handled...

BOOKER: And - and - and I understand. But she came forward. She took a great extent...

KAVANAUGH: Yes.

BOOKER: ... Your family has gone through hell. Her family has gone through hell. She sat here, she told her truth. And - and you made the allegation that she was coordinating it. I do not think she was coordinating with her therapist...

KAVANAUGH: I - I did not say that - that's...

BOOKER: ... You said - I'm sorry. So you said that others were making a coordinated...

KAVANAUGH: ... Coordinated by people in this room.

BOOKER: ... Forgive me. You were talking about us and not her. So she was not - she was not doing this for a political effort in 2012 when talked to her therapist about this attack. She was not coordinating about this painful - when she made - painful experience when she made revelations to her husband.

She did coordinate in 2013, '16, 2017, before you were even nominated when she revealed that it was you - with three different people - that had sexually assaulted her. That wasn't coordination. And (inaudible)...

KAVANAUGH: All the witnesses who were there say it didn't happen. Ms. Keyser's her longtime friend, said she never saw me at a party with or without Dr. Ford...

BOOKER: Sir - sir, and Ms. Keyser has said clearly, and I will quote what she said, she said she does not remember the night in question that - that - that supports what you said. But she also says that she believes Dr. Ford.

And so my - my colleague Lindsey Graham, who I - I respect, and have admiration to and has been a partner of mine. He said voting no would be legitimizing the most despicable thing in American politics.

Do you think that people who believe Dr. Ford are - are legitimizing despicable things? Those of us who think she's a credible witness, the allegations against her (ph) are credible. Do you think that somehow we are engaging in something that's despicable?

KAVANAUGH: Senator, I - I say listen to both sides before you make a bottom-line conclusion. And look at the...

BOOKER: That is fair.

KAVANAUGH: Look at the...

BOOKER: I - I have 10 seconds left, sir. You can answer after I finish, I have 10 seconds left. That is fair. Listen to both sides, this is not about somebody - one side being despicable, the other side not.

Listen to both sides. She was a credible - I'm - I'm - let me finish my question, you can answer - she - she gave credible, meaningful testimony, a woman who had the courage to come forward and tell her truth, sir.

And - and that's what I'm just asking you, is say she is not a political pawn. She is not orchestrating, she is not part of the Clinton's efforts to get some kind of revenge. She is a woman who came here with corroborating evidence to tell her truth.

KAVANAUGH: Is that a question?

BOOKER: No, sir. It was a final statement.

GRASSLEY: Senator Cruz...

BOOKER: Just on one thing, Mr. Chairman...

GRASSLEY: Yes.

BOOKER: That the evidence is not corroborated at the time. The witnesses who are there say it didn't happen.

GRASSLEY: Senator Cruz.

CRUZ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Judge Kavanaugh, you and your family have been treated incredibly poorly by Senate Democrats and by the media. And let me say also I think Dr. Ford and her family have been treated incredibly poorly by Senate Democrats and the media.

You have both seen your good names dragged through the mud. And this has been sadly one of the most shameful chapters in the history of the United States Senate. Let me say to you and your family, thank you for a lifetime of public service.

I will say watching your mother's pained face has been heart-wrenching as she's seen her son's character dragged through the mud after not only your lifetime of public service but her lifetime of public service as well.

And I know as a father, there's been nothing more painful to you then talking to your daughters and explaining these attacks that the media is airing. I also believe though that the American people are fair minded people, that the American people can set aside the partisan warfare of Washington and look to substance and facts. And that is the charge of this committee.

Now there have been three different sets of allegations that have dominated the media.

I think it's important to note that two of those sets of allegations had so little corroboration that even the New York Times, which is no conservative outlet, refused to report on them because they could find no basis for them.

And it was striking in this entire hearing that not a single Democrat in this committee asked about two sets of those allegations, Ms. Ramirez's allegations and the allegations of the client of Mr. Avenatti, not a single Democrat.

I don't know if they were just too embarrassed. Mr. Avenatti's allegations were s scandalous that the ranking member omitted his client's most scandalous accusations of you as a criminal mastermind essentially, omitted those scandalous accusations from a statement.

This hearing has focused rightly so on the allegations Dr. Ford presented. And let me say, I think the committee did the right thing in giving Dr. Ford a full and fair opportunity to tell her story. That's what we needed to do when these allegations became public.

And the committee treated her with respect, as we should. I do not believe Senate Democrats have treated you with respect. What do we know? We know that her testimony and your testimony are in conflict.

A fair-minded assessor of facts would then look to, "What else do we know when you have conflicting testimony?" Well we know that Dr. Ford identified three fact witnesses who she said observed what occurred. All three of those fact witnesses have stated on the record under penalty of perjury that they do not recall what she is alleging happening.

They have not only not - not corroborated her charges, they have explicitly refuted her charges. That's significant to a fair-minded fact finder.

In addition, you've walked through before this committee your calendars from the time. Now I will say you were a much more organized teenager than I was and than many of us were, but it was a compelling recitation of night-by-night-by-night where you were in the summer of 1982. That is yet another contemporaneous piece of fact to assess what happened.

And we also know that the Democrats on this committee engaged in a profoundly unfair process. The ranking member had these allegations on July 30th and for 60 days - that was 60 days ago - the ranking member did not refer it to the FBI for an investigation. The ranking member did not refer it to the full committee for an investigation. The ranking member - this committee could have investigated those claims in a confidential way that respected Dr. Ford's privacy.

And some of the most significant testimony we heard this morning is Dr. Ford told this committee that the only people to whom she gave her letter were her attorneys, the ranking member, and her member of Congress. And she stated that she and her attorneys did not release the letter, which means the only people that could have released that - that letter were either the ranking member and her staff or the Democratic member of Congress, because Dr. Ford told this committee those are the only people who had it.

That is not a fair process and we should look to the facts, not anonymous innuendo and slander.

FEINSTEIN: Mr. Chairman, I ask for a point of personal privilege to respond.

GRASSLEY: Proceed.

FEINSTEIN: Mr. Chairman, let me be clear: I did not hide Dr. Ford's allegations. I did not leak her story. She asked me to hold it confidential and I kept it confidential as she asked. She apparently was stalked by the press, felt that what happened - she was forced to come forward, and her greatest fear were realized - was realized. She's been harassed, she's had death threats, and she's had to flee her home.

In a - in addition, the investigation that the Republican majority is heralding is really nothing that I know about other than a partisan practice. Normally all the witnesses would be interviewed. However, that's not happened. While the majority has reached out to several people, they did not notify me or my staff that they were doing this, and so to argue that we would not participate but not tell us what they were up to is somewhat disingenuous.

I was given some information by a woman who was very much afraid, who asked that it be held confidential and I held it confidential until she decided that she would come forward.

CORNYN: Mr. Chairman, would - would the ranking member answer a question, please?

FEINSTEIN: If I can.

CORNYN: I - I have great respect for Senator Feinstein. We've worked together on many topics, and I believe what you just said. Can you tell us that your staff did not leak it?

FEINSTEIN: Oh, I don't believe my staff would leak it. I have not asked that question directly, but I do not believe they would.

CORNYN: You - you - you know that? I mean, how in the world could that get in the hands of the - of the press unless...

FEINSTEIN: The answer is no. The staff said they did not (ph).

CORNYN: Have you - have you asked you - have you asked your staff or other staffers on the Judiciary Committee?

FEINSTEIN: I just did. They - they - pardon me?

(UNKNOWN): You've asked me before.

FEINSTEIN: Well, Jennifer (ph) reminds me I've asked her before about it, and that's true.

CORNYN: Well someone - well somebody leaked it. If it wasn't you...

FEINSTEIN: Well it was - I - I'm telling you, it was not - I did not. I mean, I was asked to keep it confidential, and - and I'm criticized for that too.

CRUZ: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the chairman a question? Which is does the committee have a process, if there is an allegation against any nominee, to assess that allegation in a confidential forum rather than in the public - since Dr. Ford requested that it be kept confidential, is there a process for the committee for considering confidential allegations?

GRASSLEY: Yes. Yes it's - and the answer is yes, and I sent - Senator Tillis pointed out the document that I put out to show of all the things that we've done along the lines of your question.

CRUZ: And Mr. Chairman, what would you have done if, on July 30th, the ranking member had - had raised this allegation with you? As the chairman of this committee, how would you have handled that (ph)?

GRASSLEY: We would have done like we have done with every background - or, let's say FBI report that comes from the White House with a nominee, and then subsequent to that, because maybe the FBI got done with it three months ago, we do through the FBI or information comes to us, then we have our investigators, in a bipartisan way, both the Republicans and the Democrats, follow up on those - whatever those questions are or those problems that have to be worked out.

CRUZ: So bipartisan investigators could have investigated this two months ago and it could have been heard in a confidential setting without Dr. Ford's name or Judge Kavanaugh's name being dragged through the mud. Is that correct?

GRASSLEY: And except - and except for one or two conversations that we had with the judge through our investigators, Democrats didn't participate except in those two, but in those two - or, one or two, they didn't ask any questions.

CRUZ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

GRASSLEY: I want to...

FEINSTEIN: Mr. Chairman...

GRASSLEY: Yes, go ahead.

FEINSTEIN: May I - may I - may I respond? It's my understanding that her story was leaked before the letter became public. And she testified that she had spoken to her friends about it and it's most likely that that's how the story leaked and that she had been asked by press. But it did not leak from us, I assure you of that.

CORNYN: Well Mr. - Mr. Chairman, I - I'm a little confused. I thought only the member of the House and Senator Feinstein and her lawyers had the letter, so her friends she might have talked to about it couldn't leak the letter if they just had a verbal conversation, unless she gave them a copy of the letter.

FEINSTEIN: Senator, I don't think the letter was ever leaked.

CORNYN: Well how in - how did the press know to contact her about her complaint?

FEINSTEIN: She - apparently she testified here this morning that she had talked to friends about it, and the press had talked to her.

GRASSLEY: Senator - or, Judge, since there was some reference to the problems - the legitimate problems and the - and the change of lifestyle that Dr. Ford, if you want some time to say the impact on your family, I'd be glad to hear you. If you don't want to talk about it, that's OK.

KAVANAUGH: I've - I've talked about that, Mr. Chairman.

GRASSLEY: OK, then Senator Harris.

HARRIS: Thank you. Judge Kavanaugh, have you taken a professionally administered polygraph test, as it relates to this issue?

KAVANAUGH: No, the - I'll do whatever the committee wants. Of course, those are not admissible in Federal court, but I'll do whatever the committee wants, they're not admissible in Federal court because they're not reliable -

HARRIS: Thank you - thank you.

KAVANAUGH: As you know.

HARRIS: So you've not taken one?

KAVANAUGH: Right.

HARRIS: All three of the women who have made sworn allegations against you have called for an independent FBI investigation in to the claims. You've been asked during the course of this hearing - by four different members by my count, at least eight times today, and also earlier this week on national television whether you would call for the White House to authorize an FBI investigation.

Each time you have declined to do so. Now you know, I know you do - that the FBI is an agency of men and women who are sworn and trained law enforcement who in the course of conducting background investigations on nominees for the Supreme Court of the United States and others, are charged with conducting those background investigations because they are sworn law enforcement and they have the expertise and the ability and the history of doing that.

So I'm going to ask you one last time, are you willing to ask the White House to authorize the FBI to investigate the claims that have been made against you?

KAVANAUGH: I'll do whatever the committee wants, of course -

HARRIS: And I've heard you say that -

KAVANAUGH: The witness statements -

HARRIS: But I've not heard you answer a very specific question that's been asked, which is, are you willing to ask the White House to conduct an investigation by the FBI to get to whatever you believe is the bottom of the allegations that have been levied against you?

KAVANAUGH: The FBI would gather witness statements, you have witness statements -

HARRIS: Sir, it's - I don't want to debate with you how they do their business, I'm just asking are you willing to ask the White House to conduct such an investigation? Because as you are aware, the FBI did conduct a background investigation in to you, before we were aware of these most recent allegations. So are you willing to ask the White House to do it - and say yes or no and then we can move on.

KAVANAUGH: I've had six background investigations over 26 years -

HARRIS: Sir, as it relates to the recent allegations are you willing to have them do it?

KAVANAUGH: The witness testimonies before you know a witness who was there, supports that I was there -

HARRIS: OK, I'm going to take that as a no and we can move on. You have said in your opening statement, you characterized these allegations as a conspiracy directed against you. I'll point out to you that Judge - Justice now, Neil Gorsuch was nominated by this president.

He was considered by this body, just last year. I did a rough kind of analysis of similarities - you both attended Georgetown Prep, you both attended very prestigious law schools, you both clerked for Justice Kennedy, you were both circuit judges, you were both nominated to the Supreme Court, you were both questioned about your record - the only difference is that you have been accused of sexual assault.

How do you reconcile your statement about a conspiracy against you with the treatment of someone who was before this body not very long ago?

KAVANAUGH: I explained that in my opening statement, Senator. Look at the evidence here, the calendars, look at the witness statements, look at Ms. Keyser's statement.

HARRIS: OK. And then, do you agree that it is possible for men to both be friends with some women, and treat other women badly?

KAVANAUGH: Of course, but the point I've been emphasizing and that is if you go back to age 14 for me - you will find people, and not just people, lots of people who I've been friends with. Some of whom are in this room today, starting at age 14, women. And who've talked about my friendships with them through my whole life, and it's a consistent (ph) pattern all the way through.

Sixty-five women, who knew me more than 35 years ago, signed a letter to support me after the allegation was made because they know me, and they were with me, and we grew up together, we talked on the phone together and we went to events together. That is who I am.

What the people who worked with me in the Bush White House, the - the women there, look at what Sarah Day said in CentralMaine.com. Look at the - what the law clerks - I have sent more women law clerks to the Supreme Court than any other federal judge in the country.

HARRIS: I only have a few seconds left and I'll just ask you a direct question. Did you watch Dr. Ford's testimony?

KAVANAUGH: I did not. I plan to...

HARRIS: Thank you, I have nothing else...

KAVANAUGH: ... I plan to...

HARRIS: ... Thank you.

KAVANAUGH: ... I plan to. But I did not because I was preparing mine.

GRASSLEY: Our last five minutes will be, Senator Flake, one minute.

FLAKE: Yes.

GRASSLEY: And Senator Kennedy, four minutes.

FLAKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

When Dr. Ford came forward with her account, I immediately said that she should be heard and asked the chairman to delay the vote that we had scheduled. And the chairman did, and I appreciate that. She came, at great difficulty for her, and offered compelling testimony.

You have come and done the same. I am sorry for what's happened to you and your family, as I'm sorry for what has happened to hers. This is not a good process but it's all we've got.

And I would just urge my colleagues to recognize that, in the end, we are 21 very imperfect senators trying to do our best to provide advice and consent. And in the end, there is likely to be as much doubt as certainty going out of this room today.

And that, as we make decisions going forward, I - I hope that people will recognize that. And in the rhetoric that we use and the language that we use going forward that we'll recognize that, that there is doubt, we'll never move beyond that. And - and just have a little humility on that front.

So thank you.

GRASSLEY: Thank you, Senator Flake.

Now, Senator Kennedy.

KENNEDY: I'm - I'm sorry, judge, for what you and your family have been through. And I'm sorry for what Dr. Ford and her family have been through. It could have been avoided.

Do you believe in God?

KAVANAUGH: I do.

KENNEDY: I'm going to give you a last opportunity, right here, right in front of God and country. I want you to look me in the eye. Are Dr. Ford's allegations true?

KAVANAUGH: They are not as to me. I have not questioned that she might have been sexually assaulted at some point in her life by someone, someplace. But as to me, I've never done this; never done this to her or to anyone else.

And I've talked to you about what I was doing that summer of 1982. But I'm telling you I've never done this to anyone, including her.

KENNEDY: Are Ms. Ramirez's allegations about you true?

KAVANAUGH: Those are not. She - no - no - none of the witnesses in the room support that. The - if that - that had happened, that would have been the talk of campus in our freshman dorm.

The New York Times reported that as recently as last week, she was calling other classmates seeking to - well, I'm not going to characterize it - but calling classmates last week and just seemed very - I'll just stop there. But that's not true. That's not true.

KENNEDY: Are Ms. Swetnick's allegations, made by Mr. Avenatti about you, true?

KAVANAUGH: Those are not true. Never met her, don't know who she is. There's this (ph) - a letter released within two hours of that breaking yesterday, from I think 60 people who knew me in high school. Men and women, who said it was - their word's nonsense - totally, you know, the whole thing that - totally ridiculous.

KENNEDY: None of these allegations are true?

KAVANAUGH: Correct.

KENNEDY: No doubt in your mind?

KAVANAUGH: Zero, I'm 100 percent certain.

KENNEDY: Not even a scintilla?

KAVANAUGH: Not a scintilla; 100 percent certain, senator.

KENNEDY: You swear to God?

KAVANAUGH: I swear to God.

KENNEDY: That's all I have, judge.

GRASSLEY: Judge Kavanaugh, thank you very much.

Hearing adjourned.

END

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF BRETT M. KAVANAUGH TO BE AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT, DAY 5, FOCUSING ON ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT SEPTEMBER 27, 2018 SPEAKERS: SEN. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, R-IOWA, CHAIRMAN SEN. ORRIN G. HATCH, R-UTAH SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-S.C. SEN. JOHN CORNYN, R-TEXAS SEN.

# data[].attributes.body
Abortion laws in the United States target minorities and the undocumented.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Brett Kavanaugh Tried to Stop This Woman from Getting an Abortion | NowThis

# data[].attributes.body
Saturday Night Live brings humor to Kavanaugh's hearing.

# data[].attributes.body
Really?
Full coverage: Kavanaugh and Ford hearing https://news.yahoo.com/watch-live-kavanaugh-ford-hearing-193149321.html?soc_src=community&soc_trk=ma