This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/27/us/politics/dr-blasey-ford-testimony-kavanaugh.html

The article has changed 9 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 4 Version 5
In Emotional Hearing, Kavanaugh and Blasey Present Senators With Stark Choice In Emotional Hearing, Kavanaugh and Blasey Present Senators With Stark Choice
(about 1 hour later)
WASHINGTON — She was nervous as anyone would be describing the worst moment of her life, choking up at the memory of a violent encounter that happened 36 years ago. Her voice at times was high, her manner deferential, even solicitous. WASHINGTON — At the beginning of the day, she was asked if she was sure that he was the one who sexually assaulted her 36 years ago. “One hundred percent,” she said. At the end of the day, he was asked if he was certain he had not. “One hundred percent,” he said.
He was bristling with outrage and grievance, fighting back tears, his voice trembling, a man who saw his own life unraveling before him. He lashed out, interrupting senators and defiantly proclaiming his innocence. One after the other, Christine Blasey Ford and Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh sat in the same chair before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, separated by less than an hour but a reality gulf so wide that their conflicting accounts of what happened when they were teenagers cannot be reconciled.
Christine Blasey Ford and Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh sat in the same chair before the Senate Judiciary Committee one after the other on Thursday, separated by about an hour and a reality gulf so wide that their conflicting accounts of what happened when they were teenagers cannot be reconciled. In effect, they asked senators to choose which one they believed. With millions of Americans alternately riveted and horrified by the televised drama, Dr. Blasey and Judge Kavanaugh left no room for compromise, no possibility of confusion, no chance that they remembered something differently. In effect, they asked senators to choose which one they believed. And in that moment, these two 100 percent realities came to embody a society divided into broader realities so disparate and so incompatible that it feels as if two countries are living in the borders of one.
It was surely the most explosive and surreal confirmation hearing since Clarence Thomas and Anita F. Hill 27 years ago. A nominee for the Supreme Court was asked if he was “a gang rapist” and a blackout drunk, while defending himself by describing how long he preserved his virginity. His accuser described him “grinding into me,” covering her mouth when she tried to scream and fearing that he “was accidentally going to kill me.” It has become something of a cliché to say that the United States has become increasingly tribal in the era of President Trump, with each side in its own corner, believing what it chooses to believe and looking for reinforcement in the media and politics. But the battle over Judge Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination has reinforced those divisions at the intersection of sex, politics, power and the law.
With millions of Americans alternately riveted and horrified by the televised drama, Dr. Blasey and Judge Kavanaugh left no room for compromise, no possibility that they simply remembered something differently. She was unequivocal that he sexually assaulted her at a house party in Maryland when they were in high school and he was equally adamant that he did no such thing. Senators emerged from Thursday’s hearing bitterly split into those tribes, with Democrats persuaded by Dr. Blasey’s calm and unflustered account of being shoved onto a bed, pawed, nearly stripped and prevented from screaming for help, while Republicans were moved by Judge Kavanaugh, who bristled with red-faced outrage and grievance at what he called an orchestrated campaign to destroy his life.
“Dr. Ford, with what degree of certainty do you believe Brett Kavanaugh assaulted you?” Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, asked Dr. Blasey, who also goes by her married name, Ford. By Thursday night, only a few of the 100 who will decide Judge Kavanaugh’s fate remained undecided, searching for answers where none were readily available. “There is doubt,” said Senator Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona. “We’ll never move beyond that. Just have a little humility on that.”
“One hundred percent,” she said calmly. It was surely the most explosive and surreal confirmation hearing since Clarence Thomas and Anita F. Hill in 1991. A nominee for the Supreme Court was asked if he was “a gang rapist” and a blackout drunk, while defending himself by describing how long he preserved his virginity. His accuser described him “grinding into me,” covering her mouth when she tried to scream and fearing that he “was accidentally going to kill me.”
When Mr. Durbin a few hours later challenged Judge Kavanaugh to call for an F.B.I. investigation, the nominee erupted in indignation. Unlike Ms. Hill 27 years ago, Dr. Blasey was treated gingerly by the committee Republicans, who feared looking as if they were beating up a sexual assault victim and handed over the questioning to an outside counsel who never meaningfully challenged her account.
“I’m telling the truth!” he shouted. “I’m innocent! I’m innocent of this charge!” For a dozen days, Dr. Blasey had been an idea rather than a person, the focal point of one of the most polarized debates in a polarized capital without anyone having seen her, met her or heard her. But on Thursday, she became a very human being, telling a terrible story about Judge Kavanaugh in compelling terms that brought many women to tears and transformed the battle for the Supreme Court.
A day of uninhibited emotions swung back and forth, leaving Judge Kavanaugh’s fate in limbo. Dr. Blasey, 51, a university professor in California, came across as so credible that even Republicans did not meaningfully challenge her account and their chairman even praised her “bravery.” Republicans inside and outside the White House began to despair of their chances of confirming Judge Kavanaugh in a Senate where they hold a narrow 51 to 49 majority. She came across as Everywoman — an Everywoman with a Ph.D. — at once guileless about politics yet schooled in the science of memory and psychology. By the end of her testimony, even Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the Republican committee chairman, thanked her “for your bravery coming out.”
But Judge Kavanaugh, 53, showed up after lunch, brimming with anger and resentment, nothing like the milder version he presented on Fox News earlier in the week. He attacked the confirmation process and the Democrats in unvarnished terms, not entirely unlike Justice Thomas did in 1991, while laboring not to directly question Dr. Blasey’s credibility or character. And in the process, he seemed to embolden Republicans again in shared outrage at Democrats. At this point, at the White House, on Capitol Hill and in Republican circles around town, there was despair. Even Judge Kavanaugh’s friends acknowledged that she had come across as powerful and credible. Text messages with words like “disaster” were shared as Republicans began thinking ahead to what would happen after the nomination was withdrawn or voted down. Liberals began arguing that Judge Kavanaugh should even step down from the appeals court where he currently serves.
“This confirmation process has become a national disgrace,” Judge Kavanaugh told the committee. “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 has been a frenzy on the left to come up with something, anything to block my confirmation.” But when Judge Kavanaugh showed up in the same hearing room, it was a different nominee than the mild, overly rehearsed jurist who was interviewed on Fox News earlier in the week. Encouraged by Mr. Trump, he embraced Justice Thomas’s approach of confrontation and anger, appealing to his tribe by adopting the narrative of the president who nominated him and the base that supports him.
He was more emotional than he has been seen in public before, his face contorted with bitterness, sniffing, teary, halting, taking deep breaths and repeated drinks of water to regain control. “My family has been destroyed by this, senator,” he said at one point. “Destroyed.” While careful not to directly attack Dr. Blasey, Judge Kavanaugh practically shouted at the senators, calling the confirmation process a “circus” and “national disgrace” and blaming the questions about his history on a conspiracy to “destroy me” fueled by “pent-up anger about President Trump” and “revenge on behalf of the Clintons.”
Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, came to his defense, dispensing with the careful plan to have an outside counsel do the questioning for Republicans and erupting at the Democrats for what he characterized as a political smear. Suddenly, the Republican senators who seemed so defeated just minutes earlier roared back to life with righteous indignation on Judge Kavanaugh’s behalf and dispensed with the outside counsel, taking over the questioning for themselves.
“What you want to do is destroy this man’s life,” he railed at Democrats. Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, the only Republican who had aggressively defended the judge in the hallway, now led the way in the hearing room with a scathing assault on Democrats sitting a few feet away.
“What you want to do is destroy this guy’s life,” he railed at them.
Turning to Judge Kavanaugh, he said, “You’ve got nothing to apologize for.”Turning to Judge Kavanaugh, he said, “You’ve got nothing to apologize for.”
Then addressing the wavering Republican senators whose votes will determine this confirmation, Mr. Graham said, “To my Republican colleagues, if you vote no, you’re legitimizing the most despicable thing I have seen in my time in politics.”Then addressing the wavering Republican senators whose votes will determine this confirmation, Mr. Graham said, “To my Republican colleagues, if you vote no, you’re legitimizing the most despicable thing I have seen in my time in politics.”
For Dr. Blasey, the hearing was a debut on the national stage as never before. For a dozen days, she was an idea rather than a person, the focal point of one of the most polarized debates in a polarized capital without anyone having seen her, met her or heard her. But on Thursday, she became a very human being, telling a terrible story about Judge Kavanaugh and a friend in compelling terms that transformed the battle for the Supreme Court. The messages were directed at two audiences — one was Mr. Trump, who had backed Judge Kavanaugh but left open the possibility that he would pull the nomination if he believed Dr. Blasey, and the other was the clutch of three or four senators whose votes seemed genuinely in play.
She came across as Everywoman — an Everywoman with a Ph.D. — at once guileless about politics yet schooled in the science of memory and psychology. Mr. Trump responded immediately after the hearing with a full-throated endorsement of Judge Kavanaugh and a call to confirm him. The swing votes, however, remained uncertain and huddled together into the night. With a narrow 51 to 49 majority, Republicans could afford to lose only one of their own if they could not pick up any Democrats.
“What is the strongest memory you have?” asked Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont. “Strongest memory of the incident?” The Judiciary Committee was scheduled to meet on Friday morning to vote, with Mr. Flake the deciding vote, and Senate Republican leaders planned to move the nomination to the floor perhaps by the weekend. If Judge Kavanaugh seemed doomed at midday on Thursday and revived by the end of the day, anything could still happen before the final vote, especially if additional allegations continue to pile up.
“Indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter,” she said, using a term for part of the brain, “the uproarious laughter between the two and their having fun at my expense.” Whether or not he is confirmed, however, the battle will not end there. With Election Day barely five weeks away and some voters already casting early ballots, Judge Kavanaugh’s case will play out in the court of public opinion.
“I was underneath one of them while the two laughed, two friends having a really good time with one another,” she added. Democrats hope that outrage among women will drive them to the polls to help them take control of Congress on Nov. 6. Republicans recognize that the confirmation of a nominee accused of sexual assault would be a political liability, but hope to energize the conservative base by focusing on what they characterize as a left-wing character assassination campaign.
Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the Republican chairman of the committee, and the committee’s other Republicans turned over their share of the questioning to Rachel Mitchell, a career sex crimes prosecutor from Arizona. Ms. Mitchell methodically walked Dr. Blasey through her story one detail at a time, without making a particularly concerted effort to undermine it. In the end, the public will weigh in. One tribe will win. The other will lose. But they will not meet in the middle.
Interrupted in her interrogatory every five minutes to switch to the Democratic side, Ms. Mitchell never seemed to develop a train of questioning that would cause many watching to doubt Dr. Blasey. She asked whether Dr. Blasey ever flew to Australia and who paid for her polygraph test. At times, it was not clear what point she might be driving at. By the end, even Ms. Mitchell seemed to suggest that it was not particularly effective, noting that asking questions in five-minute increments was not the recommended method for interviewing sexual assault victims.
Dr. Blasey was not challenged in any extended way about the gaps in her story — that she could not remember whose house the party took place in and when precisely it happened. Nor was there much made of the fact that the three other people Dr. Blasey remembered being in the house at the time have said they remember no such event and had never seen Judge Kavanaugh behave like that.
Mr. Grassley, the only Republican who spoke at length during her part of the hearing, was more focused on defending how he had handled the allegations and assailing Democrats for not raising them earlier. Democrats responded with their own process complaints, arguing with Mr. Grassley about whether there should be an independent F.B.I. investigation of Dr. Blasey’s accusation.
During their own time for questions, Democratic senators mainly praised Dr. Blasey for her courage in coming forward and posed only sympathetic queries about how the event she described had affected her life. No one on either side pushed her to any degree or poked significant holes in her story. By the end of her appearance, even Mr. Grassley concluded by thanking her “for your bravery coming out.”
What made Dr. Blasey’s appearance so powerful was how uncomfortable she appeared. She seemed to have no artifice. While poised, she gave every impression of someone who did not relish the spotlight focused on her. Her hair falling in her face as she read her opening statement, she choked up as she recalled fearing that Judge Kavanaugh “was accidentally going to kill me” by covering her mouth to keep her from screaming.
She was anything but an eager participant in the Washington wars. She said apologetically that she had not understood how the process worked when she first tried to bring her allegation to the attention of the Senate, and her lawyer appeared to tell her to raise her hand when Mr. Grassley swore her in as a witness. She asked Mr. Grassley politely if it was O.K. for her to say something to him.
Beyond that, she asked for nothing other than a chance to speak and some caffeine. When Mr. Grassley asked at one point if she wanted a break, she held up a cup. “I’m O.K.,” she said, smiling broadly. “I got the coffee.”
She described how the assault haunted her for years even though she never told anyone about it for decades. She described the ordeal of the last couple of weeks as she received death threats that forced her and her family to leave their home. She talked about her fear of flying and how stressful it was to take a lie-detector test.
Asked at one point about exculpatory evidence, she said, “I don’t know what exculpatory evidence is.” At another point, she described why she was uncertain about coming forward, saying she feared she would be “personally annihilated.”
That was a fear that both of Thursday’s protagonists shared.