THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I SAID AT THE FIRST DAY OF THE FIRST HEARING REGARDING JUDGE KAVANAUGH THAT THIS IS NOT NORMAL. IT MIGHT LOOK NORMAL. YOU HAVE THE NOMINEE. YOU HAVE THE FAMILY BEHIND THEM. YOU HAVE ALL THE CAMERAS ON. BUT IT WASN'T NORMAL. IT WASN'T NORMAL BECAUSE THIS NOMINEE WAS HAND PICKED BY A PRESIDENT WHO, IN JUST THE LAST WEEK, HAS GONE AFTER THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THREATENED TO FIRE THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, WHO'S OVERSEEING A MAJOR INVESTIGATION, A NATIONAL SECURITY INVESTIGATION, HAND PICKED BY A PRESIDENT WHO'S CONSTANTLY UNDERMINING LAW ENFORCEMENT, CONSTANTLY UNDERMINING THE F.B.I., AND YET, THIS PRESIDENT PICKED A NOMINEE WHO HAS THE MOST EXPANSIVE VIEW OF EXECUTIVE POWER THAT WE'VE SEEN. A PRESIDENT, A VIEW OF EXECUTIVE POWER THAT, ACCORDING TO HIS WRITINGS AND EVEN THE CASE LAW, SAYS, IN HIS OWN WORDS, IN AN OPINION, THAT A PRESIDENT SHOULD BE ABLE TO DECLARE LAWS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. IN HIS OWN VIEWS, IN LEGAL WRITINGS, THAT A PRESIDENT SHOULD BE ABLE TO BE IMMUNE FROM INVESTIGATION WHILE SITTING IN OFFICE. THAT WE SHOULDN'T HAVE A SPECIAL COUNSEL STATUTE. SO THAT'S WHERE WE START. THAT'S THE CORE HERE AS WE LOOK AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES THAT WE'RE FACING. THE SECOND REASON THIS ISN'T NORMAL IS THAT WE DID NOT GET THE INFORMATION WE NEEDED TO MAKE A DECISION. I COME FROM A STATE THAT BELIEVES IN PROCESS, AND MY OLD JOB FOR EIGHT YEARS, I HEADED UP THE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. WE HANDLED, BY THE WAY 12,000 JUVENILE CASES EVERY SINGLE YEAR, SO I SAW CASES JUST LIKE THE ONE WE HEARD ABOUT YESTERDAY. BUT IN OUR ROLE I WOULD ALWAYS TELL PEOPLE, IF WE HAD TO LET A CASE GO, IF WE HAD TO MAKE A DEAL THAT PEOPLE DIDN'T LIKE, OUR ROLE WAS TO BE MINISTERS OF JUSTICE. IT WAS TO CONVICT THE GUILTY BUT ALSO PROTECTING THE INNOCENT. AND I DON'T THINK WE PROTECTED THE INNOCENT VERY WELL YESTERDAY, AND I CERTAINLY DON'T THINK WE'RE DOING IT TODAY. THERE WAS A LOT OF CHEST BEATING THAT WENT ON YESTERDAY ON THE OTHER SIDE. AND IT WAS PRETTY EFFECTIVE, I GUESS, IF THE GOAL WAS TO DISTRACT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC FOR WHAT THEY HAD HEARD IN THE MORNING, TO DISTRACT AND DEFLECT FROM THE MOVING POWERFUL TESTIMONY WE HEARD, AND I DON'T WANT TO HEAR ABOUT RESPECTING DR. FORD WHEN WE ARE NOT GIVING HER THE RESPECT OF HAVING AN INVESTIGATION OF THE CASE THAT SHE MADE TO US YESTERDAY. IT WAS A WHILE AGO THAT THIS HAPPENED, AND THERE'S OTHER CLAIMS OUT THERE AS WELL, BUT IT'S BEEN MY EXPERIENCE, AS SENATOR WHITEHOUSE JUST ARTICULATED, THAT IF YOU DON'T GO BACK AND LOOK AT THINGS AND YOU DON'T LOOK AT CORROBORATING EVIDENCE AND YOU DON'T TALK TO THE WITNESSES, YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENED. I HAVE PROPOSED AND TALKED TO SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES AND I KNOW OTHERS HAVE AS WELL, THERE IS A FINITE PERIOD FOR AN F.B.I. INVESTIGATION. MAYBE A WEEK. GEORGE H.W. BUSH ORDERED THAT IN THE ANITA HILL CASE. A THREE-DAY INVESTIGATION. THAT HAPPENED. WHETHER PEOPLE LIKED THAT OUTCOME OR NOT, IT HAPPENED. THAT IS NOT EVEN HAPPENING HERE. WE ARE NOT EVEN GIVING DR. FORD THE RESPECT OF HAVING THAT INVESTIGATION. AND THAT IS WRONG. THAT IS NOT BEING MINISTERS OF JUSTICE. THIS WAS A WOMAN WITH NO POLITICAL BACKGROUND, WHO MADE AN ATTEMPT TO CALL THE FRONT OFFICE OF HER CONGRESSWOMAN. THAT'S WHAT SHE DID. SHE DID THIS BEFORE THE NOMINEE WAS EVEN PICKED. SHE DID IT WHEN THE NOMINEE WAS ON A SHORT LIST BECAUSE SHE WAS CONCERNED. THAT'S WHAT SHE DID. SO DON'T ARGUE THAT SHE IS PART OF SOME MASSIVE POLITICAL STRATEGY. THOSE AREN'T THE FACTS. AND, YES, IT'S MESSY. THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IS MESSY. THINGS COME IN AT THE LAST MINUTE. IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. IT HAPPENS BEFORE A TRIAL. IT HAPPENS BEFORE A HEARING. AND THE QUESTION IS NOT IF IT'S MESSY. SENATOR FLAKE HIMSELF SAID YESTERDAY, THIS IS NOT A GOOD PROCESS, BUT IT'S ALL WE'VE GOT. THE QUESTION IS, WHAT DO YOU DO WHEN IT HAPPENS? WHEN YOU'RE IN A POSITION OF POWER, WHAT DO YOU DO WHEN IT HAPPENS? YOU MAY NOT LIKE HOW THIS CAME IN HAD AT THE LAST MINUTE. I WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE KNOWN ABOUT IT EARLIER TOO, BUT I DIDN'T. THE QUESTION IS, WHAT DO YOU DO WHEN IT HAPPENS? AND WHEN IT HAPPENS, YOU DON'T JUST PUT IT UNDER THE RUG. FOR SO MANY YEARS, THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED TO CLAIMS LIKE THIS. THEY WERE JUST SWEPT UNDER THE RUG. WHAT HAPPENED IN THE HOUSE, NO MATTER HOW BAD IT WAS, DIDN'T BELONG IN THE COURTHOUSE. AND THAT HURT WOMEN AND THAT HURT CHILDREN FOR A LONG, LONG TIME. BUT THE TIMES ARE CHANGING NOW. WE HAVE SOMEONE WHO MADE A CREDIBLE CLAIM. THE CHAIRMAN EVEN THANKED HER FOR HER BRAVERY. WELL, WHERE IS THE BRAVERY IN THIS ROOM? THIS RUSH. WHEN WE COULD HAVE A FINITE PERIOD OF TIME TO INTERVIEW A FINITE PERIOD OF WITNESSES, SOMEONE SHE LEDGES WAS IN THE VERY ROOM WHERE IT HAPPENED? WE ARE -- ALEDGES WAS IN THE VERY ROOM WHERE IT HAPPENED? WE ARE NOT ALLOWING THE F.B.I. TO GO IN THERE AND TELL HIM TO HIS FACE THAT YOU ARE GOING TO GET IN CRIMINAL TROUBLE IF YOU DON'T ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS CORRECTLY. INSTEAD, WE GET A LETTER BEHIND THE VEIL OF A LAW FIRM. THAT'S NOT THE SAME THING. WE HAVE A POLYGRAPH EXPERT. YESTERDAY, I PUT THAT POLYGRAPH EXAM ON THE RECORD. PEOPLE WERE BRITTLING OVER THERE AND SAY, WE WANT TO SEE THE CHARTS. WELL, WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO HAVE THE POLYGRAPH EXPERT TO TESTIFY AND HOW THIS WAS VERIFIED. YES, AS JUDGE KAVANAUGH POINTED OUT, THIS IS NOT A TEST THAT IS ADMIRABLE IN COURT. BUT GUESS WHAT --ED A MISSIBLE IN COURT. BUT GUESS WHAT, WE USE IT FOR JOB INTERVIEWS, WE USE IT FOR THE F.B.I., WE USE IT FOR THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, WE USE IT FOR THE C.I.A., AND THE NOMINEE HIMSELF SAID THIS IS USEFUL TO USE FOR THOSE PURPOSES IN A CASE THAT HE DECIDED IN 2016. THOSE ARE THE KIND OF WITNESSES WE COULD HEAR FROM IF WE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY, MAYBE ONE WEEK, TO DO IT. SO I LOOK AT IT THIS WAY. IF WE WANT TO SHOW DR. FORD RESPECT, WE GIVE HER THE RESPECT OF HAVING HER CASE HEARD AND THE EVIDENCE LOOKED AT. I LOOK AT IT AS, WHAT ARE YOU HIDING? WHAT WOULD IT HURT? IF JUDGE KAVANAUGH SO SURE HE HAS THIS CORROBORATING EVIDENCE AND WHAT THIS CALENDAR MEANS AND WHAT THESE THINGS MEAN, THEN WHAT IS HE AFRAID OF IF WE JUST SPEND ONE WEEK LOOKING AT THE EVIDENCE? WHAT I HAVE HEARD TODAY JUST ADDS TO THIS. WHEN I HEARD THE SANCTIMONIOUS TALK ABOUT SOME KIND OF A POLITICAL STRATEGY, WELL, I'LL GIVE YOU EXHIBIT A. MYRIC GARLAND, WHO WAS -- MERRICK GARLAND, WHO WAS DELAYED FOR 10 MONTHS. WE'RE ASKING FOR ONE WEEK FOR AN INVESTIGATION AND YOU CAMED MAREK -- MAREK GARLAND OFF OF THIS COMMITTEE FOR 10 MONTHS. THAT'S NOT EVEN A COMPARISON. THAT WAS A STRATEGY, YESTERDAY, AND, BOY, WAS IT A STRATEGY. AND I SURE HOPE SOME OF THE SENATORS WHO HAVE NOT YET MADE A DECISION, WHO ARE NOT ON THIS COMMITTEE WILL LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE AND LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENED AND SEE IT FOR THE STRATEGY THAT IT WAS. I ASKED DR. FORD YESTERDAY WHAT SHE REMEMBERS FROM THAT NIGHT AND I ALSO ASKED HER WHAT SHE COULDN'T FORGET. AND HERE'S WHAT SHE SAID. THE STAIRWELL, THE LIVING ROOM, THE BEDROOM, THE BED ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE ROOM, THE BATHROOM IN CLOSE PROXIMITY, THE LAUGHTER, THE UPROAR RUSS LAUGHTER, THE MULTIPLE TIMES TO ESCAPE AND THE FINAL ABILITY TO DO SO. WE HEARD HER TALK ABOUT HOW SHE HAD A CIVIC DUTY TO BRING THIS UP. WE HEARD HER TESTIFY ABOUT HOW SHE HAD ACTUALLY BROUGHT THIS UP SIX YEARS BEFORE TO A COUNSELOR, ABOUT HOW HER HUSBAND RECALLS HER USING THE JUDGE'S NAME. IN THE RULES OF EVIDENCE, IT SAYS THAT STATEMENTS MADE TO A PROFESSIONAL, TO A MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL ARE CONSIDERED TO BE CREDIBLE. IN CASES WHEN YOU COMPARE EVIDENCE, YOU LOOK AT PEOPLE'S -- WHAT THEIR GOALS ARE. WHAT WOULD BE THEIR REASONS TO LIE. AND I LOOK AT YOU HAVE ON ONE HAND A JUDGE WHO IS A CAREER MAKING MOMENT TO GET ON THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, AND BY THE WAY, NO ONE IS ENTITLED TO BE ON THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. AND THEN YOU HAVE A WOMAN WHO TRIED TO KEEP THIS CONFIDENTIAL, WHO CAME FORWARD, SENT A LETTER, TRIED TO DO WHAT SHE COULD TO KEEP HER NAME OUT OF THE NEWS, AND FINALLY WHEN THE REPORTERS SHOWED UP AT HER DOOR, SHE CAME FORWARD. I JUST SEE THESE AS DIFFERENT. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE RULES OF EVIDENCE, WHEN YOU LOOK AT CREDIBILITY, THE FACT THAT SHE HAD MENTIONED THIS YEARS BEFORE MEANS A LOT. BUT YOU COULD HAVE DOUBTERS. I UNDERSTAND THAT. WHEN WE DON'T HAVE AN INVESTIGATION AND THINGS IN WRITING TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT THE FACTS, WHERE ARE WE? I HAVE BEEN ON THIS COMMITTEE FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, AND I HAVE BEEN BRIEFED ON F.B.I. BACKGROUND CHECKS, AND NUMBER OF TIMES -- AND MY COLLEAGUES KNOW THIS -- NOMINEES WITHDRAW BECAUSE OF WHAT IS IN THOSE BACKGROUND CHECKS. THEY PULL THEIR NAMES OUT. THE PRESS NEVER KNOWS IT BUT IT HAPPENS. OR SOMETIMES WE'RE PRESENTED WITH SOME INFORMATION THAT'S NOT PUBLIC AND WE HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION, WELL, DID THIS DRUG USE AMOUNT TO SOMETHING THAT SHOULD KEEP THIS PERSON OFF THE BENCH? DOES LOOKING AT THIS WEBSITE AMOUNT TO KEEPING THIS PERSON OFF THE BENCH? THESE ARE THINGS WE ACTUALLY CONSIDERED. THAT'S THE KIND OF INFORMATION WE GET FROM THOSE BACKGROUND CHECKS. AND I THINK IT'S A GOOD THING, BECAUSE NOT EVERYONE NEEDS TO BE DRAGGED THROUGH THE MUD, THINGS THAT ARE CONTAINED IN A BACKGROUND CHECK THOSE BACKGROUND CHECKS ARE USEFUL FOR US AND THEY'RE USEFUL FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. I FOR ONE DON'T WANT TO LIVE IN AN EVIDENCE-FREE ZONE. WE NEED THIS INFORMATION. I WOULD SUBMIT TO MY FRIENDS ACROSS THE AISLE, THIS IS NOT A HE SAID-SHE SAID. THIS IS A HE SAID-THEY SAID. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE OUT THERE WHO HAVE TALKED ABOUT THE FACT, INCLUDING THE NOMINEE'S ROOMMATE, THAT HE IS BELLIGERENT WHEN HE GETS DRUNK. YES, THAT WAS A LONG TIME AGO. MAYBE HE DOESN'T DO THAT ANYMORE. AND I KNOW PEOPLE IN HIGH SCHOOL DRINK A LOT AND IN COLLEGE. BUT WHEN I ASKED HIM ABOUT THIS, TO TRY TO GET TO THE FACTS -- I'M NOT AN F.B.I. AGENT. BUT ALL I WAS TRYING TO DO WAS FIGURE OUT, WELL, MAYBE HE HAS PARTIAL MEMORY LOSS WHEN HE GETS THAT DRUNK OR MAYBE HE BLACKS OUT. I DON'T KNOW. I WAS TRYING TO GET THAT. WHAT DID I GET IN RESPONSE? A QUESTION OF IF I BLACK OUT. DID HE APOLOGIZE? HE DID. AND I APPRECIATED THAT. BUT THE POINT IS, IF WE COULD HAVE THE F.B.I., LIKE WE DO WITH ALL BACKGROUND CHECKS, INTERVIEW THESE WITNESSES, WE COULD GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THE FACTS. JUDGE KAVANAUGH SAID ON FOX NEWS AND YESTERDAY THAT HE WANTS A FAIR PROCESS. THAT'S WHAT HE SAID HE WANTS. AND WHEN I ASKED THE JUDGE WHY HE WOULDN'T ASK THE PRESIDENT TO HAVE THE F.B.I. REOPEN THE INVESTIGATION YESTERDAY, HE DIDN'T MAKE THAT REQUEST. HE DIDN'T REALLY ANSWER THAT QUESTION. THERE ARE ONLY A FEW PEOPLE IN AMERICA RIGHT NOW THAT CAN REOPEN THAT INVESTIGATION. THE ONE SITTING ACROSS THE ROOM BECAUSE, YES, SENATOR GRASSLEY COULD HAVE HELD OFF THIS VOTE UNTIL WE HAD THAT INVESTIGATION. JUDGE KAVANAUGH COULD HAVE EASILY SAID, MR. PRESIDENT, FOR THIS TO MOVE FORWARD, I WANT TO AT LEAST CLEAR MY NAME, BUT MOSTLY I WANT TO HAVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS TRUE OR NOT. HE COULD HAVE DONE THAT. WHY DIDN'T HE DO IT? BECAUSE THEY'RE AFRAID OF WHAT THEY'LL FIND OUT. YESTERDAY, THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AND SENATOR DURBIN HAS JUST NOTED AND READ THE LETTER, SENT A LETTER URGING THE COMMITTEE NOT TO VOTE ON JUDGE KAVANAUGH'S NOMINATION UNTIL THE F.B.I. HAS CONDUCTED APPROPRIATE FOLLOW-UP. THE A.B.A. SAID THEY MADE ITS REQUEST BECAUSE OF THE, QUOTE, RESPECT FOR THE RULE OF LAW AND DUE PROCESS UNDER LAW. THE A.B.A. SAID THEY MADE THEIR REQUEST BECAUSE OF THE RESPECT OF THE RULE OF LAW AND DUE PROCESS UNDER THE LAW. I CHOSE TO GET ON THIS COMMITTEE -- I DIDN'T GET ON IT RIGHT AWAY BECAUSE I HAD DONE THIS WORK FOR EIGHT YEARS BEFORE I GOT ON HERE. I GOT ON HERE TWO YEARS AFTER I GOT TO THE SENATE BECAUSE I DECIDED I WANTED TO CONTINUE THAT LAW -- THAT WORK, TO UPHOLD THE RESPECT FOR THE RULE OF LAW AND DUE PROCESS UNDER THE LAW. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT I SAW YESTERDAY. SO IF THIS COMMITTEE ISN'T GOING TO RESPECT THE LAW AND IF WE GO TO THE FLOOR AND THE SAME THING HAPPENS AGAIN, I WOULD REMIND MY COLLEAGUES THAT THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT SAY WE, THE RULING PARTY. THE CONSTITUTION SAYS, WE, THE PEOPLE. AND IF THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY WANT TO HAVE A CHECK AND BALANCE IN THE SUPREME COURT, A CHECK AND BALANCE ON THIS ADMINISTRATION, IF THEY WANT TO HAVE A FAIR PROCESS, THEY'RE THE ONLY ONES LEFT TO PITCH IN HERE. THEY'RE THE ONLY ONES LEFT TO HAVE A SAY, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, THE WAY THIS PROCESS IS RUN, WE'RE NOT RUNNING IT LIKE WE, THE PEOPLE. IT'S BEING RUN LIKE WE, THE RULING PARTY. I VOTE NO.