Christine Blasey Ford faced the Senate Judiciary Committee and the American public Thursday to share her story about an alleged sexual assault by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
Most people got their first direct look at Ford, and the overwhelming consensus, from right, left, and center alike, was that she was a credible and compelling witness.
She asserted time and again that she was “100 percent” certain that Kavanaugh was the boy who pinned her down and tried to force himself on her at a high school gathering in the 1980s. She used her training as a psychology professor to describe, in scientific terms, the trauma that she then felt and has continued to experience for the rest of her life.
“How are you so sure that it was he?” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), the ranking Democrat on the committee, asked near the beginning of the hearing.
“The same way that I’m sure that I’m talking to you right now. Just basic memory functions,” Ford said. Various neurotransmitters, she continued, “code memories into the hippocampus, and so the trauma-related experience is locked there, whereas other details kind of drift.”
“So what you are telling us, this could not be a case of mistaken identity?” Feinstein said.
“Absolutely not,” Ford said.
She also outlined how her life has changed since going public, even describing reporters outside her home talking through the window to her dog to try to calm it down.
Ford’s four hours of testimony were alternately moving, bizarre, and infuriating. These are the seven most important moments that summarize the most riveting and consequential congressional hearing in years.
1) Ford’s moving, emotional opening statement
The contents of Ford’s testimony were already known, as her written statement had been posted the night before, but reading it in writing and seeing Ford recall the alleged assault in real life were two wholly different experiences.
Ford’s voice cracked, she seemed clearly nervous, and she often looked on the edge of tears. But she powered through a gripping retelling of the day she says Brett Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge trapped her in a room at a high school gathering, and Kavanaugh forced himself on top of her and, she believes, was attempting to rape her. (Kavanaugh and Judge deny the accusation.)
“I believe it is my civic duty,” she told the senators in her opening statement of her decision to come forward with the allegations. “I felt like I couldn’t not do it.”
She repeated, both in her opening statement and throughout her questioning by Democratic senators and the Republican outside counsel, that she was “100 percent” certain Kavanaugh was the person who had tried to force himself on her.
“I don’t have all the answers,” she said. “The details that bring me here today are the ones I will never forget. They have been seared into my memory and haunted me.”
2) “The laughter”
Ford noted in her opening statement that she remembers Kavanaugh and Judge laughing during the alleged assault. But she came back to that point again when Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) asked her what her strongest memory of the attack was.
“The laughter,” Ford said. “The uproarious laughter between the two and their having fun at my expense.”
“You have never forgotten that laughter, forgotten them laughing at you?” Leahy asked.
“They were laughing with each other,” Ford said.
“And you were the object of the laughter?” Leahy continued.
“I was underneath one of them while the two laughed,” Ford replied. “Two friends having a really good time with one another.”
3) “I’m used to being collegial”
Throughout the hearing, Ford’s personality shined. She routinely resorted to technical psychological terms and science, even to describe her own trauma. (She is, after all, a psychology professor at Palo Alto University.) She politely asked at the beginning of the hearing if she could have caffeine after her opening statement — and she did get a cup of coffee.
But one exchange she had with Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), the chair of the Judiciary Committee, epitomizes the polite demeanor Ford displayed at the hearing. It came about an hour after the hearing started, when Grassley suggested they were coming up on an agreed-upon time for a break in the questioning.
“It is my understanding that that is where you would like to take a break?” Grassley said.
“Does that work for you? Does that work for you as well?” Ford asked in reply.
“We’re here to accommodate you, not to accommodate us,” Grassley said, a little sheepishly.
“Thank you,” Ford said. “I’m used to be collegial.”
4) Chuck Grassley interrupts prosecutor Rachel Mitchell
Republicans intentionally asked Rachel Mitchell, an Arizona prosecutor with experience in sex crimes, to conduct their questioning. They wanted to avoid the visual of old and white Republican senators interrogating a woman who says she was sexually assaulted.
But the format of the hearing was five minutes of questions for Republicans, then five minutes of questions for Democrats. So Mitchell was regularly forced to stop and cede time to Democrats, which gave her line of questioning a disjointed and dizzying feel.
The first moment that Grassley was forced to interrupt Mitchell because the Republican time had expired typified the strange dynamic. Ford was right in the middle of explaining a couple of things in a letter she wrote to Sen. Feinstein. Ford had said explicitly she had three issues to clear up and had only gone through two of them.
“Oh, okay. 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,” Ford was saying. “I don’t know. It was from behind so I don’t want to put that solely on him.”
“Miss Mitchell, I don’t know whether this is fair to interrupt, I want to keep people within five minutes. Is that a major problem for you in the middle of a question?” Grassley said. “I’ve got to treat everybody the same.”
So Mitchell paused, and Feinstein asked Ford questions for five minutes. Only then was Mitchell able to return to the issues Ford wanted to clear up in the letter.
It was symbolic of the entire Republican line of questioning, which seemed clearly designed to cast doubt — on Ford’s reliability as a witness, on the events of the day of the alleged assault, and on the motivations of her handlers — but without a clear counternarrative. The questions didn’t point in any self-evident direction, nor did they pick up any momentum, as Mitchell was regularly required to stop and yield to Democrats.
5) Republican questions focused on a map and fear of flying
Mitchell asked a lot of questions about Ford’s decision to come forward, her conversations with Democratic lawmakers and staff, and her interactions with the press. The subtle implication was Republicans were digging around to find evidence that Ford had been coached or otherwise instructed in her revelation of the alleged assault.
Ford regularly showed naiveté about the usual process for handling such a high-profile allegation, saying repeatedly that she did not even realize initially that she should hire an attorney until friends advised her that she should.
But two lines of questioning stuck out more than most. At one point, Republicans put up a poster that showed an area of the Washington, DC, suburbs where Ford and Kavanaugh lived in the 1980s, the location of the house that was the scene of the alleged assault, and the country club where Ford says she was swimming earlier that day.
That led to several exchanges like this, where Mitchell’s questions seemed to take Ford into a dead end without any clear purpose, except some vague suggestion of unreliability.
“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 could see it is 6.2 and 8.2 miles,” Mitchell said. “And you’ve described this as being near the country club, wherever this house was, is that right?”
“I would describe it as somewhere between my house and the country club in that vicinity that is shown in your picture,” Ford said. “And the country club is about a 20-minute drive from my parents’ home.
“A 20-minute drive. And of course I’ve marked as the crow flies,” Mitchell said. “Would it be fair to say that somebody drove you somewhere, either to the party, or home from the party?”
“Correct,” Ford replied.
“Has anyone come forward to say to you, remember, I was the one that drove you home?” Mitchell asked.
“No,” Ford said.
Mitchell also drilled into Ford’s reported fear of flying, with the apparent implication that because she professed a fear of flying and has yet often flown for work or pleasure, she may not be entirely trustworthy in her claims.
“When you were here back in August, end of July, August, how did you get here?” Mitchell asked Ford.
“Also by airplane,” she said. “I come here once a year during the summer to visit my family.”
“In fact, you fly fairly frequently for your hobbies and you have had to fly for your work,” Mitchell continued. “Is that true?”
“Correct, unfortunately,” Ford said.
“I also saw you talked about Hawaii, Polynesian islands. Have you been to all of those places?” Mitchell said.
“Correct,” Ford said.
Nevertheless, the overarching consensus, from both conservative and mainstream observers, seemed to be that Ford had cut a credible figure through Thursday’s hearing.
6) Democrats talked. A lot.
Democrats entered Thursday’s hearing with one explicit goal: to build up Ford’s credibility. Some of that involved asking her questions about what happened to her and what her life has been like since. Some of those questions yielded powerful answers, such as when Sen. Leahy asked Ford what her strongest memory of the attack was and she replied “laughter.”
But more often than not, Democrats were content to talk. A lot. They did so in the interest of supporting Ford, helping her to feel believed and heard, and rebutting Republican talking points against her story. But their rounds of “questions” read more like speeches than, you know, questions.
Even Leahy led his five minutes with an extended monologue before getting to his substantive questions:
Mr. Chairman, you know 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 word this is morning, the easy way to do that is ask the FBI to investigate. It is what we’ve always done. Let them investigate and report back to us. The same applied 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 is my personal view. Now, 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 of 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, and indeed 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. And now Judge Kavanaugh and the White House promoted a wild theory about a Kavanaugh lookalike. You immediately rejected that theory. As did the innocent man who had been called that lookalike. In fact, he sent a letter to this committee forcefully rejecting the absurd theory and ask for consent to enter that into the record.
Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) took an extended tangent after asking Ford about how her family was faring (she said her husband was doing “fairly well”). 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, by you coming forward, your courage, you are affecting the culture of our country.
We have a wonderful nation, an incredible culture, but there are dark elements that allow unconscionable levels, unacceptable levels, of sexual assault and harassment that are affecting girls and boys and affecting men and women from big media outlets to corporations to factory floors.
I stepped out during the break and there are literally hundreds of thousands of people watching your testimony right now, and 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 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 our office, is you are speaking truth that this country needs to understand.
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 on to this, speaking 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 [Jeff] Flake [R-AZ] 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.
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate:
You and your family should know that for every scurrilous charge and pathetic tweet, there have been thousands of Americans, men and women, who believe you and support you and thank you for your courage.
Watching your experience, it is no wonder that many sexual assault survivors hide their past and suffering in pain and 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.
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 has not.
Today you come before this committee and 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 is no wonder your recollection is less than perfect. A polished liar could create a seamless story, but a trauma survivor cannot be expected to remember every painful detail. That is what Sen. Leahy 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’m not questioning that Dr. Ford may have been sexual assaulted by some person at someplace at some time.”
Last night, the Republican staff of this committee released to the media a timeline that shows they’ve interviewed two people who claim they were the one that’s actually assaulted you.
He then asked his first question.
“Dr. Ford, with what degree of certainty do you believe Brett Kavanaugh assaulted you?” Durbin asked.
“100 percent,” she said.
7) Mitchell asks Ford why she’s even testifying before the Senate
In a bizarre conclusion to Ford’s testimony, Mitchell appeared to question why Ford was testifying before the Senate at all, rather than in the more typical setting for sexual assault victims, which is a private one-on-one interview.
As with many of Mitchell’s questions, there was a vague, if only implied, accusation that Ford’s allegation or the people handling her had some partisan motivations.
“The best way to do it, the best practices for interviewing victims of trauma ... would you believe me if I told you there’s no study that says this setting in five-minute increments is the best way to do that?” Mitchell asked as she was winding down. “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?”
“That makes a lot of sense,” Ford said.
“It does make a lot of sense, doesn’t it?” Mitchell said. “And to follow up, obviously, to fill in the details and ask for clarification, does that make sense as well?”
“Yes,” Ford responded.
“Did anybody ever advise you from Sen. Feinstein’s office or Rep. [Anna] Eshoo’s [D-CA] office to go get a forensic interview?” Mitchel asked.
“No,” Ford said.
“Instead, you were advised to get an attorney and take a polygraph, is that right?” Mitchell continued.
“Many people advised me to get an attorney,” Ford responded. “Once I had an attorney, my attorney and I discussed using the polygraph.”
“And instead of submitting to an interview in California, we’re having a hearing here today in five-minute increments,” Mitchell said. “Is that right?”
“I agree that’s what was agreed upon by the group here,” Ford said.
At that point, Mitchell was finished. “Thank you. I have no further questions.”