EXECUTIVE CALENDAR--Continued

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I have a lot of concerns about the possibility of Brett Kavanaugh serving on the Supreme Court. They are concerns that come from many different directions, but let's start with the precedent that this body has not reviewed his full record. We haven't taken any look at all at the 3 years he was Staff Secretary to President Bush because the President's team intervened and asked us not to. And a couple Members of this body collaborated with the White House to deny everybody else here the possibility of looking at his record.

The thing is that each and every one of us has a responsibility to review the record. This exceptional situation in which a few Members have made it impossible for anyone in the body to fulfill their constitutional responsibility is an extraordinary abuse of power in this body.

Then we have the President of the United States reaching out in other ways--in ways we have never seen before--and putting the stamp of Presidential privilege on some 100,000 documents. These were documents from the time that Brett Kavanaugh served as a White House Counsel. We received a few documents, and there were a lot of troubling things in those documents, but 100,000 documents were censored by the President of the United States.

I will just remind my colleagues that the President is not supposed to interfere with the work of the Senate in the confirmation process. It is called the separation of powers. Maybe some of you would like to pull out your Constitution and study it for a moment and realize that the President nominates but doesn't get to decide what this body reviews. Yet that stamp of Presidential power, untested, has done so for, as far as we can tell, the first time in U.S. history.

Then we have the fact that he asked the same individual whom he had given the stamp of Presidential power to proceed to make some 140,000 documents confidential so the public couldn't see them. Well, that, too, was untested. That, too, was an original strategy. That, too, was a situation of minimizing the conversation that experts could have of what was in those records.

Of those three phases, I think the one that bothers me the most is the second one--the use of the stamp of Presidential privilege on 100,000 documents. When Presidential privilege--otherwise known as Executive privilege--was used in the past, a document was looked at and it was determined, what constitutional test does this meet for special treatment? One would think that since these were documents from the Bush administration, the Trump administration couldn't make any of the arguments that normally are made about compromising conversations in the White House, but no explanation was given. This was just straight- out censorship across the board.

I challenged that censorship, and the hearing that was supposed to take place unfortunately won't take place because of this rush to complete the confirmation before the Senate can get ahold of those documents, before that hearing can occur.

Why the rush to cooperate with the White House to prevent this body from seeing those 100,000 pages that were censored by the White House? What is the President hiding? Is it Brett Kavanaugh's involvement in the policy of torture? Is it Brett Kavanaugh's involvement in holding the documents stolen from Senate Democrats, because we know he received them? Is it his involvement in other nominations where he said he wasn't very involved? What is in those 100,000 documents that the White House was desperate that this body not review? That is certainly troubling. No nomination should go forward without a review by this body of a nominee's records, certainly not for a lifetime appointment and certainly not for the Supreme Court.

Then there is concern over the temperament of the individual. Out of the hundreds of millions of Americans across this land, certainly there are at least nine who have the temperament to serve. No need to turn to someone who is belligerent and condescending. No need to turn to someone who is angry and unstable. But what did we see? That is exactly what we saw when we heard him testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

He said things like: ``Some of you were lying in wait and had it ready,'' although he said it in an angrier tone than that.

He said: ``This confirmation has become a national disgrace.'' Well, I don't actually argue with that because it is a disgrace because of the compromises of fairness that have occurred in this process toward the women who came forward.

When he was asked by Senator Klobuchar if he has ever been blackout drunk, he responded: ``I don't know. Have you?'' Well, interesting response. Did he respond ``I don't know'' because he can't remember because he blacked out? Was that his point?

Then we saw the partisan rhetoric: a frenzy on the left to come up with something, anything, to block my confirmation. Angry and partisan, all in one moment.

Then he went on to say much more about things being calculated and orchestrated, about things being a political hit, fueled with pent-up anger about President Trump. He talked about fear unfairly stoked. He talked about revenge on behalf of the Clintons.

He threatened the Senate. He said: ``As we all know, what goes around comes around.''

This man with these quotes is qualified to serve on the special body known as the Supreme Court of the United States? I don't think so.

He talked about the fact that he didn't drink too much and he didn't become belligerent. Yet we saw a lot of belligerence when he came before the body. This is called not having judicial temperament. That performance of intemperate behavior led to 2,400 law professors noting that it was improper, inappropriate, simply wrong, that this man should serve. They wrote a letter October 3rd: ``The Senate should not confirm Kavanaugh.'' The letter was presented to us the following day. They said this:

Judicial temperament is one of the most important qualities of a judge. As the Congressional Research Service explains, a judge requires ``a personality that is evenhanded, unbiased, impartial, courteous, yet firm, and dedicated to a process, not a result.''

The concern for judicial temperament dates back to our founding. In Federalist 78, titled ``Judges as Guardians of the Constitution,'' Alexander Hamilton expressed the need for the integrity and moderation of the judiciary.

The letter continues:

We are law professors who teach, research, and write about the judicial institutions of this country. Many of us appear in State and Federal court and our work means that we will continue to do so, including before the United States Supreme Court. We regret that we feel compelled to write to you, our Senators, to provide our views that at the Senate hearings on September 27, Judge Brett Kavanaugh displayed a lack of judicial temperament that would be disqualifying for any court, and certainly for elevation to the highest court of this land.

They continued based on their background--2,400 law professors from across the country--saying:

The question at issue was, of course, painful for anyone. But Judge Kavanaugh exhibited a lack of commitment to judicious inquiry. Instead of being open to the necessary search for accuracy, Judge Kavanaugh was repeatedly aggressive with questioners. Even in his prepared remarks, Judge Kavanaugh described the hearing as partisan, referring to it as ``a calculated and orchestrated political hit'' rather than acknowledging the need for the Senate, faced with new information, to try to understand what had transpired.

Instead of trying to sort out with reason and care the allegations that were raised to him, Judge Kavanaugh responded in an intemperate, inflammatory, and partial manner, and he interrupted and at times was discourteous to Senators.

As you know, under two statutes governing bias and recusal, judges must step aside if they are at risk of being perceived as or of being unfair. As Congress has previously put it, a judge or justice ``shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.'' These statutes are part of a myriad of legal commitments to the impartiality of the judiciary, which is a cornerstone of the courts.

We have differing views about the other qualifications of Judge Kavanaugh, but we are united as professors of law and scholars of judicial institutions in believing that he did not display the impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on the highest court of the land.

Signed, with their respective institutional affiliations, 2,400 law professors, saying that this man is not suited to serve.

Another concern not mentioned in that letter was his fidelity to the truth--misrepresentations, inaccuracies, and straight-out whoppers.

Some of our colleagues, like the senior Senator from South Carolina, said: I have argued to you that when you found that a judge was a perjurer, you couldn't in good conscience send him back into the courtroom because everybody who came in that courtroom thereafter would have a real serious doubt--a real serious doubt over whether the truth was being told.

Brett Kavanaugh said that all witnesses to his alleged assault of Dr. Ford refuted her claim or said it didn't happen. What is the truth? Only one person said it didn't happen: Brett Kavanaugh. All of those other folks he said refuted it--nobody refuted it. They said they couldn't remember, but they didn't refute it. And one said that while she couldn't remember, she believed Dr. Ford. So Brett Kavanaugh, in the most generous capacity, simply doesn't have the ability to keep the facts straight on a pretty straightforward thing--big difference between refuting and not remembering--or he deliberately misrepresented the facts, in which case he lied.

Brett Kavanaugh said he first heard of the Ramirez allegations in the period since The New Yorker published the story, but we have had multiple reports that Brett Kavanaugh and his team were working to discredit Ramirez before The New Yorker story. Why did he say that he learned about it after, when he was working to discredit it before? Did he think this was clever, that he could kind of say: Well, I heard about the full story in The New Yorker after The New Yorker article was published. Was that what he was trying to imply--like maybe I can slip by on that one--because he didn't want people to know that he knew about it early and had worked to discredit her? Another whopper from Brett Kavanaugh.

Brett Kavanaugh said he did not travel in the same social circles as Dr. Ford, who went to Holton-Arms, but what was the truth? His classmates said they routinely socialized with the Holton-Arms girls. So much for that statement.

Brett Kavanaugh said he categorically did not receive documents stolen from Democratic Senators and their staffs by Manny Miranda in the early 2000s, but in one of those documents that didn't get censored, that slipped its way through to the Senate, what did we find out? It shows that he clearly received the stolen documents--another lie from Brett Kavanaugh.

Brett Kavanaugh said that Judge Pickering's nomination was not one he primarily handled. Well, let's just say that this is less than the full truth. Maybe if you emphasize the word ``primarily,'' you find some shred of accuracy, but it is certainly not a full and appropriate presentation because it turns out that he was involved in a number of critical aspects of the Pickering nomination.

Brett Kavanaugh said he did not see or hear anything about President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program before it was publicly reported, but in some of those other documents that slipped through, we find out that he did know about them, and he emailed John Yoo about the warrantless wiretapping long before the program became public.

Brett Kavanaugh said the Bush administration did not consider ideology when selecting or vetting judges, but the truth is that the documents show that they did consider ideology.

Why did this man, Brett Kavanaugh, feel the need to misrepresent the truth time after time after time?

He implied that when it came to drinking, he didn't drink excessively and he did not get aggressive. Yet we have person after person after person saying that is exactly what happened.

He said the phrase ``Renate Alumnus'' in his yearbook was ``clumsily intended to show affection.'' Let me repeat that: ``clumsily intended to show affection.'' And he continued: ``and that she was one of us.'' Isn't it nice that he and his colleagues got together to pick out this one young lady and show in their yearbooks that they had affection for her, when everyone else involved said that is not what it was all about at all? It was about this group of men bragging about sexual conquests. It may not have actually occurred, but they were laughing over the prospect of disgracing this individual. What kind of a warped character goes out of his way to either brag about sexual conquests or to imply-- imply--a character that she did not have, to tear her down? But that is Brett Kavanaugh.

He went on to tell some real whoppers--that folks in his circle say the term ``ralphing'' refers to throwing up when drinking. He said: No, it refers to a sensitive stomach. They are all things that he had written.

``Boofing,'' what was that all about? He said that has to do with flatulence, but everyone around him says: No, that was a crude sexual activity that he was describing. That is what that word means. I will not give the details of it.

He said ``devil's triangle'' is a drinking game, when everyone else says: No, it wasn't a drinking game; it has another sexual connotation.

So he couldn't bring himself to be honest and say: I don't feel comfortable giving the definition of those in a public hearing because I am such a nice, sweet guy. But instead, he lied. Lying came so easy-- lie after lie after lie. As my colleague from South Carolina said: When a person lies once, you don't trust them after that. How would anyone, after breaking the truth, be believed in the future?

So we have the fact that his character is one of hurting and attacking others, of lying even to the U.S. Senate. Some 2,400 law professors note that his temperament, his animosity, and his partisanship make him unqualified to serve on the Court.

So what is this all about? Why are my colleagues across the aisle so intent on getting him confirmed? It has to do with his judicial philosophy and taking no risk that this seat is not filled with this judicial philosophy--this philosophy for the powerful over the people.

There have been some interesting aspects of this philosophy. One is that he believes that the President is above and beyond the law and should not or cannot be indicted or investigated while he is in office.

The Court may well have to make some rulings on how President Trump conducts himself. President Trump might just fire the special prosecutor. Is that within his power? The Court may have to decide.

The President may decide to pardon himself--something never done in U.S. history--given all the investigations into egregious conduct. Why did the President pick this individual, who has the most expansive view of Presidential power, to serve on the Court? Maybe he is trying to write himself a ``get out of jail free'' card. But if you can't find in the Constitution that the President is above and beyond the law--and I dare you to try; I dare anyone in this Chamber to find that in the Constitution, because it is not there--why are we putting a man on the Court who thinks it is, who is so comfortable twisting and torturing the words on the page to reach a predesired conclusion?

Yes, he was handpicked by the Federalist Society after Trump promised to appoint anti-Roe v. Wade judges who would strip away the constitutional right to a full range of reproductive services. It bothers me a lot--the idea of a judge who believes the government should be in the exam room, between a woman and her doctor. The government does not belong in an exam room, between a woman and her doctor on difficult medical life issues.

But in every decision--or virtually every decision--Kavanaugh finds a way to twist the circumstances in order to find for the powerful over the people. That is what this rush to jam this person onto the Court is. Does he believe the Court should take on gerrymandering, which is a huge blight on equal representation of the people? There is no sign that he does. We currently have a Court where the majority has not wanted to take on those issues, despite the fact they are the ones who are supposed to maintain the integrity of the Constitution.

Do we have any sign that he is upset or concerned about the tearing down of the Voting Rights Act, which this Chamber passed and the House passed and was law for decades but was torn down by the court? Rather than letting this Chamber or the House together decide to adjust that law, they decided to tear it down, saying: We don't have to worry about this anymore.

Is there any sign that Judge Kavanaugh cares about the desecration of the opportunity of citizens to vote in this country? No. An offense against the Constitution, yes. His concern, none.

What about the dark money that is the consequence of a huge concentration of wealth and influence--a huge concentration of influence because the Supreme Court opened the door with the case Citizens United? I found it kind of bizarrely humorous to hear colleagues across the aisle complaining about dark money, because they have been absolutely arguing that dark money should be permitted. When we had the idea of not having dark money and shining a light on it--it was called the DISCLOSE Act--every single Republican in this Chamber voted against it. Every single one voted against sunlight. Why is that? The Koch brothers essentially are the puppet masters of this Chamber. They invested hundreds of millions of dollars in dark money, thanks to Citizens United, in making sure that they had control of this Chamber. Did we hear Judge Kavanaugh have any interest in cleaning up this mess?

Thomas Jefferson was speaking to the core architecture of our Constitution, and he said that the mother principle--he referred to it as the ``mother principle''--was that there would be an equal voice among the citizens. Now, we know it was not the case that everyone had an equal voice. Communities of color did not have an equal voice and women did not have an equal voice, but what Jefferson was speaking to was the distribution of power across the electorate. He said only then will you have laws that reflect the will of the people.

But Citizens United is the opposite of that. It concentrates power. If you have an individual like the Koch brothers who can put $100 million into a campaign and you have an ordinary person who can put $100 into a campaign, then you are granting the Koch brothers 1 million times the influence. It is the exact opposite of Jefferson's ``equal voice'' principle.

Does Kavanaugh have the slightest understanding that the construction of the Constitution was to avoid the powerful--running the government by and for the powerful? The Constitution was a response to that very problem in Europe. There is no sign of that, no interest in that--in fact, quite the opposite.

He has bragged about being the most pure on the First Amendment. What does that mean? It means that he loves the weaponization of the First Amendment, twisted as an instrument to give the powerful victories over the people time and again--decisions against the environment, decisions against workers, decisions against consumers, decisions against reproductive rights. That is the rush to put this man, unqualified in every possible way, to serve on the Supreme Court--not having the temperament, not having the integrity. That is the rush--to secure and ensure that Jefferson's concept of equal voice is destroyed.

The most troubling is his conduct toward women. The fact that he collaborated with other boys to damage the integrity of a young woman was troubling. Troubling beyond troubling is the story of his assault on Dr. Ford, but you might say: Wait. We don't have any corroborating information about that.

But Dr. Ford asked for her corroborating witnesses to come before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and how many of those were allowed to come before the committee? None. None. Zero. The committee was determined to make it just ``he said and she said,'' without any other information. That is treating an individual unfairly--absolutely unfairly--to cherry pick information and only to allow it to support one side of the argument and to deny her the ability to bring her corroborating people before the Judiciary Committee. Even in 1991, that was not done with Anita Hill. This body treated Dr. Ford worse.

Then the sham of the reopened FBI investigation, which was only opened because one courageous colleague from Arizona said: I am not going forward unless we really examine these situations that involved his assault on women. But the decision on how to conduct that FBI investigation wasn't up to this Chamber. It was up to the President, and the President does a scoping document and tells the FBI whom to talk to. Apparently, he consulted with the leadership, it is reported-- the Republican leadership of this Chamber--on whom to let the FBI consult with, and the result was not to consult or talk to or interview a single one of those eight people that Dr. Ford asked to be interviewed.

It would take some time, I guess, to know exactly who said what to whom. It was the President's decision. So the responsibility rests there. But in the interest of fairness, was there not one Member of this body in that conversation who could speak up and say: We want the facts not a whitewash. We want the facts.

Apparently, no one did. No one insisted on that. They said: No, we will go forward, even if we hide all of the facts.

Then, there was Debbie Ramirez, who shared her story of being assaulted, her story from the college dorm. In that case, she said there were 20 people that the FBI should talk to. Well, she wasn't invited to appear by the Judiciary Committee at all, and none of her 20 individuals whom she suggested should be talked to were invited. So she got no hearing--complete exclusion. Yet many Members of this Chamber attacked her. Do you think that is fair, attacking a person but not letting her come before this Chamber to give her story? Do you think that is fair? It is not fair.

Then we have the FBI receive instructions from the White House, after consultation with the Republican leadership, and the result is they didn't talk to one of her corroborating witnesses--not one. Why, in this day and age, where we have been in the middle of a ``me too'' conversation, can individuals in this Chamber on the right side of the aisle take such joy in being so unfair to a woman coming forward to share a story? It is even worse because each one knew, if they read the newspapers, that there was a lot of corroborating information.

Kenneth Appold was in the same suite in the dorm. He lived in the same suite--two bedrooms, sharing a common space--and he heard the story. He independently recalled many of the same details that Ramirez shared, including that a male student had encouraged Kavanaugh as he exposed himself. The classmate recalled that the party took place in a common room on the first floor.

I have known this all along, he said. It has been on my mind all these years when his name came up. It was a big deal.

How come his voice was not allowed to come before the Senate? Why did the FBI not talk to him and put it into the report? I will tell you why. It was so Senators could go down and review the report and say, oh, there is no new information.

Of course, there is no new information. It is because the President's team reportedly asked the Republicans' leadership what they wanted done, and apparently it didn't want any of the people who had corroborating information to be talked to or reported on. That is a betrayal of justice. That is a complete corruption of justice.

Mr. Appold is a professor now at Princeton Theological Seminary. He is deeply respected.

He said: ``It had been on my mind all of these years when his name,'' referring to Kavanaugh, ``came up. It was a big deal.'' The story stayed with him, he said, ``because it was disturbing and seemed outside the bounds of acceptable behavior even during heavy drinking at parties on campus.'' He said he had been shocked but not necessarily surprised because the social group to which Kavanaugh belonged often drank to excess. He recalled that Brett Kavanaugh was relatively shy until he drank, at which point he could become aggressive and even belligerent.

Now, this individual, Kenneth, may be quick to judge, and one may say, well, he just invented this memory, except here is the problem--he shared it with his roommate from his first year in graduate school. He told what had happened that year, so he has a lot of credibility. He is a professor at a theological seminary. He lived in the same suite. He heard the story about it shortly after it happened. It disturbed him so much that he shared it with his roommate from his first year in graduate school. That is a pretty persuasive substantiation of Debbie Ramirez's story.

There was another classmate, Richard Oh, an emergency room doctor in California. Soon after the party, he recalled overhearing a female student tearfully recount to another student an incident at the party involving a gag with--well, you know the story--followed by a male student exposing himself. Was Richard Oh invited to come before the Senate and tell his story? No, he was not--another transgression of justice. Did the FBI talk to him? No, because it had instructions not to talk to these individuals who had corroborating information.

This is situation in which, when a woman comes forward to share her story, she is treated with disdain by this institution. That is why these women didn't want to come forward. They thought they were mistreated. Unfortunately, it turned out to be right, and everyone supporting and voting for Kavanaugh shares the shame of the mistreatment of Dr. Ford and the mistreatment of Debbie Ramirez.

Across this land, it has caused women to relive the experiences they have gone through, with many of them having written to our offices. I encourage every Senator to read every one of the letters they are getting before voting late this afternoon on the question of whether Kavanaugh should serve on the Court. I read five letters earlier, but I have received a lot of letters. I am going to read more of them now.

This individual writes:

Please do what you can to block the Kavanaugh vote to the Supreme Court. I was also a victim of sexual assault when I was in graduate school in the early 1970s. I never pursued that due to fear of consequences and feeling that this was my fault.

``This has to stop,'' she concludes the letter.

Do you think that she got any encouragement from the completely unjust way this body treated these two women? No. It is exactly the classic setup and rigged response with which, so often, women have met when they have had the courage to come forward with their stories.

Another woman wrote:

I cried all the way to work, listening to Dr. Christine.

She is referring to Christine Blasey Ford.

If you can do anything as my Senator, do everything you can to change the course of our national Court decision. There isn't much more I can say as a mom, as a professional, as a sexual assault victim who has never come forward. Please.

I appreciate her writing to me, and I share her concern and the belief that we should change the course we seem to be on at the moment because there is nothing like confirming this man without fairly examining the women who have been courageous enough to come forward. It is more insulting to all of these women who have gone through the experiences of being assaulted.

Another Oregonian wrote to me:

I am a survivor of sexual abuse. I was assaulted as a child by someone my family trusted, then again by a stranger when I was in college. In both instances, I remember the sinking feeling I had afterward--the feeling that even if I spoke up, I wouldn't be believed. I have long felt trapped inside my own trauma, but over the past couple weeks, I have drawn such strength from the sisterhood of survivors who have shown up, protested, and shouted out their own survivor stories. I have drawn strength from Dr. Christine Blasey Ford's testimony. I know that because she stepped forward, other survivors will feel brave enough to speak up too. There is power and comfort when women come together and speak our truth before the world.

I say to Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, I am sorry you were treated in this horrific manner by the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. Senate. I am sorry you were treated so unfairly that not a single one of your corroborating witnesses was pulled before the committee. I feel terrible that those at the FBI did not talk to any of the people you asked them to talk to. It was a rigged system. You were set up. You were betrayed by the leadership of this body, but your courageous action in coming forth was not without results.

This woman, like thousands of others, is looking to you and saying thank you--thank you for the courage you had to share. Even though you were afraid that you would be treated unfairly, you came forward anyway, and that gives others courage to share their stories. Unfortunately, your fears, Dr. Ford, were justified. May it never be again the case. The only right thing now is for us not to send Brett Kavanaugh to the Court.

There was an article that appeared in an Oregon newspaper, and I am going to read the story but, like the newspaper, not share her name.

The newspaper story starts out this way:

The event happened 75 years ago when ``Dorothy''--[not her real name]--watched the testimonies of Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh on television, on Thursday, during Kavanaugh's Supreme Court confirmation hearings. The memories came flooding back, and for the first time, she felt she must tell her story--a story she never told her mother, a story she didn't tell her husband either.

Dorothy's story is similar to the story Blasey told, on Thursday, in testimony that was part of the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Nominee Kavanaugh. Blasey accused Kavanaugh of attempting to rape her when they were both at a house party with a group of high school students. Kavanaugh denied the accusations, which are now the subject of an FBI investigation.

Dorothy, now 91, was a student at Reedsport High School in the 1940s. One day, she was at a friend's house where several kids her age were gathered. She said she was carried into a bedroom by a popular football player, and before she knew what was happening, she found herself pinned to a bed, underneath the boy, who was struggling to get her pants off. He was both a ``big man'' on campus and ``just big.'' She was 85 pounds.

In some ways, Dorothy's story is different from Blasey's in that she was carried and not pushed into the room. There was no one in the room except her and her attacker. Dorothy said she was able to push the boy enough that he hit his head on the bed's headboard, and with his weight off of her, she was able to yell for help, and her friend and her friend's brother rushed in and rescued her.

Dorothy doesn't want The News-Review to use her real name, so she is being referred to by a name that was given to many girls in the year she was born. She still has difficulty dealing with what happened to her in high school. For most of her life, she has refused to think about it. She has had plenty else to think about. She has raised kids, been widowed, remarried, widowed again, but it is still with her.

She said:

You try to bury all of that, and you do for a long time. Then something like this news comes up, and it brings it all back.

Dorothy started off talking about sexual harassment. It was later when she felt able to call what had happened to her by a more legally accurate name--attempted rape. Dorothy said she was naive when she was 16:

I was pretty shy and naive and unsure of myself, I guess. I don't know if feeling ``inferior'' is the right word. I made good grades, and I worked in the school office, but I was a country kid.

She couldn't talk to her mother about sex.

If I tried to ask her anything about sex, she said, ``That is dirty. We don't talk about that.'' She had a general idea, enough to understand what her attacker was after. She didn't know if he and other boys were drinking, but she was not. The kids had been dancing before it happened. It never occurred to her to report the incident. That just wasn't done in those days, and she was ashamed--embarrassed--as if the whole incident were her fault.

The story got around at school, though, and the other kids were not sympathetic. You look, and people are kind of giggling as you walk by. They had heard about it.

Now she wonders if the same boy went after other girls.

It is part of life, and it happens a lot more than people realize. It probably happened to other girls in the same school, she said. Many years after the event, Dorothy said she saw her attacker. He was in a wheelchair, and she couldn't help thinking, ``Great. He got what he deserved.''

Even though 75 years have passed, she has never forgotten what he did.

I can still shut my eyes and see that guy packing me over his shoulder and throwing me on the bed and jumping on top of me.

Watching Thursday's hearings made Dorothy furious. She believed Blasey, and she was horrified by the Senators who defended Kavanaugh.

They are so unfeeling, you know? I would hate to be their wives. If they just sit there and take this guy's word for it, I feel sorry for the wives of these guys who are so macho that they can't see a woman's point of view.

The hearing motivated her to come forward.

I just felt now is the time to tell my story, and maybe other women will come forward, and maybe they will do something more about the way that women are disbelieved.

She said it was a relief to finally share her secret. ``I am about to get weepy,'' she said.

Do you think this woman, who is now in her nineties and went to Reedsport High School, takes any good feeling away from the Senate in the way the Senate treated Dr. Ford with regard to the fact that it did not allow anyone supporting her story to appear or with regard to the fact that leadership was consulted by the White House and that the result was a scoping document that did not allow the FBI to talk to the people who had supporting information?

Do you think she takes any good feelings away from the way this Senate treated Debbie Ramirez in its attacking her and disqualifying her without even letting her come and tell her story and not talking to the 20 people she suggested had corroborative information?

Do you think she takes anything good away from the horrific way these women were treated and the unfair way they were treated? I do not think so.

You must look at the way the Senate behaved and say that is supposed to be a distinguished body, that it is supposed to being an esteemed body. We should expect the best from the U.S. Senate and we got the worst.

Another woman wrote:

You must stop the confirmation of Kavanaugh, especially after his angry, abusive testimony today that was full of lies. I am a sexual assault survivor, and I am absolutely full of despair this evening.

I am not the only one getting these letters. So, to my colleagues, I ask: Are you doing anything to address the anger about the way Dr. Ford was treated? Are you insisting that she get fair treatment before you vote to send Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court of the United States? Are you insisting those who can corroborate Debbie Ramirez's story, including a professor at the Princeton Theological Seminary, have the chance to tell their stories before you send Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court? Are you?

Another individual wrote:

Please, please, please vote no to elect Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. As a victim of domestic violence, I am full of fear for everyone who would be affected by the decisions Kavanaugh would have the power to make.

This letter starts out:

Senator, I want to thank you for expressing your concerns regarding the Kavanaugh issues. I am a survivor of rape by my best friend's older brother at the age of 10. I also survived many years of abuse by my ex-husband. While watching the coverage of the Kavanaugh news, I have heard Senators make very hurtful comments about the women who have come forward. I was proud of my Senator for having the courage to publicly announce that the way this has been managed by the Trump administration is wrong.

I totally relate to what Dr. Ford describes as being held down and not being able to breathe. The only word that adequately describes this type of treatment is torture. I do not know where my former best friend's brother is; however, my ex-husband walks around with a religious cross around his neck. He is a pillar of his church, has the admiration of our daughter. I never told my children, while I am left with years of nightmares and fear.

The Kavanaugh allegations in the news have triggered memories I have tried to bury for decades.

She says:

Though, your comments have renewed my faith that other than my older brother, there exists good men who want to support women who live with the torment of sexual abuse.

I would love it if this letter said: I was afraid that the all-male majority of the Judiciary Committee would treat Dr. Ford unfairly. I was afraid but relieved when they heard her out. I was relieved when they insisted that those who could back up her story were allowed to testify. I was relieved and pleased they took her seriously enough that they insisted the FBI--they told the President the FBI has to talk to those folks for us to have any credibility. I would love for this letter to say that, but it doesn't say any of those things because this body, this leadership, let her down and let every woman across America who has been a victim of sexual violence down.

Another woman wrote and said:

Today's hearing was difficult yet important to watch. As a victim of sexual assault myself, I applied your support hearing Dr. Ford's accounts and believing in doing what is right and just.

Wouldn't it be better if this letter could say: I applaud the Senate, the Senate leadership, and the President of the United States for believing in doing what is right and just. We didn't get letters like that, did we.

Another individual writes:

Today was an extremely difficult day watching the Kavanaugh hearings. I was so amazed by the bravery Dr. Ford showed throughout her testimony. Her experience was raw and credible. As a young victim of sexual assault, I feel emboldened because of Dr. Ford's testimony. Women need to be heard and believed. We have to hold the Supreme Court to the highest standards. Brett Kavanaugh is clearly not a candidate for the Supreme Court.

Isn't that right, that we should ensure that we have the highest standards for those who serve on the Supreme Court?

All those district judges across the land writing their decisions, they get appealed to the circuit courts, and all those circuit court judges writing their opinions, they get appealed to the Supreme Court, to nine individuals. Isn't it important that we proceed to ensure that we ``hold the Supreme Court to the highest standards''? We will not do that if we confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Court.

We will be setting an abysmally low standard for integrity for all of the falsehoods he has told and an incredibly low standard for behavior. We saw the behavior and the partisanship. We didn't see judicial temperament and impartiality.

He violates basically every standard we set for someone to serve on the Supreme Court. Yet we are having a vote later today with an indication that he will be approved.

Here is another letter:

I am a sexual assault survivor. I watched today. The sex crimes prosecutor looks like she had nailed Kavanaugh by his own calendar. Dr. Ford testified that it was early evening and casual. It appears the assault happened at the home that Kavanaugh and his friends worked out. This is when one of the majority Judiciary members took over and became angry partisans.

That is all she writes, but I think what bothered a lot of people was that the majority chose to bring in a prosecutor--a prosecutor--to question Dr. Ford, as if Dr. Ford had committed a crime.

She didn't commit a crime, my friends. She is a brave woman who came forward to share her story, hoping she would be taken seriously and treated fairly, afraid she wouldn't, and it turned out her fears were justified. They hired a prosecutor to treat her like a criminal. Wow. That is insult to injury.

This letter is longer. It is the 16th story I am reading that I received from constituents back home.

Watching Dr. Ford's treatment in the Senate today, I am having a hard time getting my own work done. Dr. Ford's assault experience parallels my own in ways I have not thought about in years. However, unlike Judge Kavanaugh, my assailant was able to complete the assaults he set out to do because we were not inebriated at the time he violated me. He merely used his size to overpower me, outweighing me by 150 pounds.

Like Brett Kavanaugh, my assailant attended an all-boy's Catholic school, attended a prestigious university, went on to become an attorney. I have considered, because of the types of clients he represents, bringing the multiple assaults he perpetrated over the course of 2 weeks, while I stayed with his family across the country from my own, to the attention of the State bar where he practices or journalists in the State where he defended Catholic priests accused of abusing children.

Seeing now what Dr. Ford is being put through, knowing she was driven from her home and threatened, is now being assaulted by her colleagues, gives me pause.

My assailant isn't up for any prestigious promotions. He is not on the short list for a Federal judicial position or running for any public office. It has been 18 years, and the statute of limitations in the State where this took place may or may not have run out, depending on how the acts are defined. If my assailant decides to follow through with his goal to become a politician, my calculus may change. For now, I need you to do what you can to shut this nomination down, to show the world that you not only believe Dr. Ford but you honor--honor--her testimony.

Your colleagues, your Republican colleagues, clearly believe her; they just don't think it matters. Please, as a survivor and as a constituent, I am begging you, make her testimony matter.

Are we going to make her testimony matter? We are not going to make it better if we send Kavanaugh to a seat on the Supreme Court.

Her desire, her interest, her possibility of coming forward is cut short by the way she saw this Senate treat Dr. Ford. That is a very sad commentary on the injustice perpetrated by this body.

This is letter No. 17. I have more than 50 letters here. As you can start to hear, the themes of women being assaulted are very similar; women hearing in Dr. Ford's story their own experience, and they are asking the Senate to treat the women who have come forward with fairness and justice and are being deeply disturbed that they have not been treated with fairness or justice.

There is still time. There is still time until we vote and send Kavanaugh forward, if we vote no, as these women asked because an individual with this record does not belong on the Court. Then we will admire the courage of these individuals to come forward.

The next letter:

As a survivor of assault, it's important to me that the nominee for one of the highest offices have an impeccable record, which Kavanaugh has demonstrated he does not have, both through his reactionary hearing and the accusations against him from survivors. I implore you to be a voice of reason in the chaos.

My first assault happened in 2011. I am so ashamed that the only way my sister found out was because she found an STD test I had received from Planned Parenthood and asked me about it. I was 24. I had nightmares for months. It changed everything.

My second assault happened in 2015. I was drunk and in an unfamiliar part of town. An acquaintance offered to give me a ride when I was leaving a bar and my phone died.

She goes on to describe the attack. She says:

I say this not for shock value, but to emphasize how painful watching this hearing was and how unsurprised I will be if Kavanaugh is confirmed.

Unsurprised because she doesn't expect men to treat women fairly who have been assaulted and have come forward. And everything that has happened in this Chamber confirms that.

The next letter notes:

As a survivor of sexual assault, this issue is of the utmost importance. I rarely speak of these events and have tears streaming down my face just writing this. I was unable to report my assault for various reasons, including explicit death threats, fear of exposure by the media, and threats by several powerful men who had the ability to end my career before it had even really begun. This situation hits so close to home that it has been physically painful--physically painful--for me to watch much of the coverage. I have been unable to obtain justice for myself, and that is soul- crushing. But what would be a greater travesty is to allow a serial predator a lifetime appointment affecting the lives of every single woman in America. Are we going to be part of a greater travesty?

Letter No. 19:

As a constituent and a victim, I am writing to you to make sure that you vote against Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation. During his hearings, Kavanaugh misled the Judiciary Committee under oath. He refused to say whether a sitting President must obey a subpoena and refused to answer whether President Trump could pardon himself or bribe someone with a pardon. And now, Kavanaugh has been accused of sexual assault by multiple women.

Kavanaugh's answers during his confirmation hearings add to the evidence that Trump nominated him not to protect the American people, not to protect the Constitution, but to protect himself. It was only a few weeks ago that Trump's former lawyer incriminated him in two felonies. It's becoming inevitable that a Trump case will reach the Supreme Court, either over his role in crimes to win the White House or a subpoena to answer questions from the special counsel.

We already know that Kavanaugh believes sitting presidents should not be under Federal prosecution or even investigation. Now, under oath, Kavanaugh isn't even pretending to be an impartial justice. That is exactly why Trump nominated Kavanaugh--to be his get-out-of-jail-free card.

Letter No. 20 begins:

As a rape victim myself, I am livid that this man is even being considered for a high position. Brett Kavanaugh's views are extreme. His belligerent behavior during the hearing shows that he should not sit on the highest court in the country. I urge you to reject that radical choice of a justice who would put our basic rights at risk. Use your constitutional authority of advice and consent to ensure that the President cannot place unfit extremists in positions of power that can affect us for decades.

Serving for life on the highest court, justices have the solemn responsibility to be fair, to be evenhanded, to uphold the sanctity of our laws and our Constitution, and to keep faith with the letter and the spirit of the Nation's core, public health, environmental, civil rights, and labor laws. His record rejects these principles. Please do all in your power to stop Brett Kavanaugh's nomination.

Letter after letter reminds us that the Supreme Court is so important. We should only send individuals to serve on that Bench who are of unimpeachable character.

Letter No. 21:

I am deeply concerned about Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court after hearing Dr. Christine Blasey Ford's story. There is no need to wait to publicly say that you believe Dr. Ford. She has generously offered more than enough information for us to fiercely support her.

I, too, am a victim of sexual assault. When I was 21, my boss at the time raped me, leaving me with a lifelong disease, and it never was reported. I had no support. I was embarrassed and humiliated and wanted to just forget about it. Looking back, I wish I would have tried to report him. I was a single mother with a 2-year-old child and my 12-year- old sister present when the assault occurred in the middle of the night as they slept.

This happened to me in 1974. I am now a 66-year-old woman who has had relationship problems her whole life and self- esteem and anxiety and sexual dysfunction ever since.

A lifetime impact from sexual assault.

Each of these women wants us to take seriously the experiences that were shared, and to take it seriously means we would look into it with fairness and credibility, but we didn't. The Senate didn't.

Letter No. 22:

It would be beyond unethical to continue with Kavanaugh's nomination in the wake of Dr. Blasey's story. I am counting on you. Signed, a MeToo survivor.

Letter No. 23:

As a victim of sexual assault during my military service, I, too, told next to no one. Why? I wasn't about to subject myself to being treated the way these courageous women who have spoken up are being treated. I am counting on you. Thank you.

We hear this time and again. Women say they didn't speak up because they thought they would be treated unfairly--unfairly--just the way the Senate treated the women who came forward and shared their stories about Brett Kavanaugh. Isn't that a sorry legacy for this body? Isn't that a shameful result, that women say they didn't speak up because they thought they would be treated unfairly, just like the Senate is now unfairly treating Dr. Ford and Debbie Ramirez? Wouldn't it be a beautiful thing to have done it differently, to have proceeded to say: Your story matters, so we will talk to those you suggested have corroborating information. We will report what information there is for the consideration of the Senate. We do appreciate that you have shared your experience, and we will look into it.

Wouldn't that have been a very different message to send, an example to send for everyone across this country--for companies when an employee reports an assault, for places of worship when a parishioner reports an assault, for schools, universities, when a student reports an assault?

Wouldn't it have been great to set an example--a high example of how to treat an individual fairly? But we did the opposite. We showed exactly the type of treatment that these women fear--a rigged, unfair, unconcerned response. But there is time to remedy that by not voting to confirm.

One of the reasons I am reading these letters is that many of the women who wrote said they were writing to try to make a difference. My team called and talked to a number of them, and they encouraged their letters to be used. They want to be heard. They want to be honored with our intention that we care about the experiences they have suffered, that we take them seriously. They want us to think about what we have done and take Dr. Ford and Debbie Ramirez seriously. That hasn't happened, but there is still time by not confirming Brett Kavanaugh.

In this letter, the individual says:

How you vote on Brett Kavanaugh's nomination is one of the most crucial votes you will cast. Please vote no.

Prior to hearing this round of hearings, I was concerned about his ability to be truthful. Now, as a survivor, I am fearful for the entire female population. I urge you to vote no for all of those reasons.

Letter No. 25:

I believe Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. I do not believe a man who could have stifled a frightened woman's screams while he felt entitled to put his hands on her body without her permission. I do not believe such a person is fit for one of the highest courts in our country. She took a lie detector test. He did not. She called for an FBI investigation. He did not. She was calm and collected. He was not.

As a sexual assault survivor and your constituent, I implore you to stand with women.

Letter No. 26:

Thank you for fighting. I was a victim of sexual assault at age 12. I am now 71. I remember it vividly. It has affected my whole life. If Kavanaugh is confirmed, we will put a horrible man on our highest court.

Thank you for highlighting the serious deficiencies in the process of President Trump's nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, to the Supreme Court.

Letter No. 27:

I am heartened by your efforts and like-minded Members of Congress who have joined the 21st century, many whose eyes, ears, hearts, and minds have witnessed the scourge of sexual misconduct. I am a 58-year-old Native American, native Oregonian. I grew up on a Catholic Indian mission with both my parents and seven brothers and sisters. Later in life, I recalled through discussions with my younger sister that my older brothers had most likely sexually abused me when I was a very young girl, less than 7 years old. I never reported it because I didn't recall it until I was in my 40s. My parents were alive and it would have destroyed them.

I am a sexual assault survivor who never told my best friend in high school when one rape occurred.

She proceeds to share information about several other assaults when she was serving in the Army, and she says that each time, she didn't report it.

All of these incidents left me fearful, feeling vulnerable, psychologically damaged, PTSD, emotional trauma, physical trauma, and other problems too incalculable to quantify.

I think these topics are often not discussed. Women in our own lives may have had experiences they have never shared with us, thinking that they might be blamed, feeling that they are ashamed, considering that they might not be believed, anticipating that they might expect that we would feel they should somehow have prevented it or somehow invited it. All of these conflicts--they sense they will not be treated with respect and dignity as the victims they are. Let's treat them with respect and dignity when they bring forward their stories.

Dear Senator Merkley: I have never taken the time to write a Senator. With Trump as President, or having Trump as President has caused depression and anxiety, but I have gritted my teeth, battened down the hatches, and tried to weather the storm. However, this saga with Kavanaugh has mobilized me to speak out and protest a person of his moral ineptitude.

I am a victim of sexual assault. I am sure you're hearing the outpouring of messages like mine from hundreds of women. I am so angry and so bitter about the current environment that promotes racism, sexism. The things I have seen voted in make me despair.

Rather than the Senate behave in a way that makes women despair, what if we behaved in a way that inspired, set an example, had people say: We didn't think you would rise to the challenge because so often we have seen mistreatment when they bring forward their stories, but you shocked us because you took it seriously and you treated these women fairly. Wouldn't that be a beautiful story rather than the reality of where we are right now?

Letter No. 29:

There are a number of viable options for this Supreme Court seat--individuals not accused of any crimes--and regardless of innocence or guilt, Kavanaugh has shown himself to be unqualified to remain impartial as a judge. Furthermore, the backlash of there being any question of guilt regarding rape accusations is too great for him to successfully fulfill the duties of that position and will cause a division between voters that will likely never be healed.

Speaking as both a concerned voter and rape survivor, there is no legitimate reason that we cannot find another candidate for this job. If he is appointed despite these allegations, it will be all but impossible for a rape survivor to ever feel safe in the U.S. again. How could we if an accused rapist is presiding as a member of the highest court in the country?

She makes a point. There are many other people who can be considered to be brought forward. Why this individual who demonstrated such partisanship? Why this individual who bent and, yes, broke the truth many times before the committee? Why this individual who wrote offensive, mocking, accusing, disgracing things, attacking a woman in his yearbook? Why this individual who chose to join a fraternity with a reputation for assaulting women? Why this individual who chose to join a secret society with a similar reputation? Why this individual about whom credible women have come forward and shared their stories of assault? And why this individual when we had the full opportunity to have considered the corroborating information from 28 individuals who they asked that we talk to and we didn't?

There is still time to reject this nomination and somehow restore the tarnished reputation that is the product of the behavior of this body during this nomination process.

Letter No. 30:

I am 66 years old, nearly 67. I can tell you exactly what occurred when I was a victim of sexual assault and attempted rape at age 16. It was burned into my memory and will forever be a part of me.

I continue to be shaken to the core that anyone would explain such behavior as normal, part of young men growing up. It is unconscionable, unacceptable, and must no longer be ignored.

Letter No. 31:

Dear Senator Merkley, I am reaching out to you as a survivor of teenage rape. Like so many other survivors, I have been following the events surrounding Judge Kavanaugh's nomination with so much emotion that I cannot really begin to express it. I do not believe that I need to ask you to say no when it comes to a floor vote, but I want you to add my voice to the many who are speaking out in the hope that the country will listen.

Sexual assault affects millions of girls, boys, women, and men. Too many of us live our lives in shame and silence, disbelieved if not outright blamed.

Nearly 30 years have passed since a fellow student in my small town high school took my innocence, to then proceed to publicly shame me. People believed him, not me.

This has to stop. People need to realize that we may forget some details, but we will never, never forget what happened. And when we know the perpetrator, we will never forget his name. He may grow old. His appearance may change. But his name will remain etched in our brains forever.

She goes on to say:

Putting Kavanaugh on the court means telling all of us, the countless millions, that we do not matter.

She closes by saying:

We matter. I matter.

Yes, you do. And when you say that you are adding your voice to the many who are speaking out in the hope that the country will listen, I commend you. I commend you for being brave enough to share your story and to ask those in this Chamber to listen. But so far, they have not listened because listening would mean treating with respect and dignity the women coming forward. Listening would mean giving these women the opportunity not just to present their case, their experience, but to have those who can corroborate their information come before the Judiciary Committee and share their stories. Listening would mean insisting that the FBI actually talk to the corroborators rather than not talk to the corroborators.

So you have not been listened to, I am sorry to report, but there is still time for someone--for several people--to say: We have reflected on this situation and realize how unfair and unjust we have been, how much we add to the trauma of millions of women by not listening to the women who have come forward, not taking them seriously, and rigging the system, as they feared would happen.

This individual writes:

I have a voice even if those screams were stifled inside of me so long ago. Today that voice says that Kavanaugh is not fit to be a member of the Supreme Court.

Beyond the details of what transpired when he was a teenager, his atrocious display during Thursday's hearing should disqualify him outright. Integrity, level-headedness, respect for the rule of law, and lack of partisan bias should be fundamental requirements of any justice.

Kavanaugh did not display any of those traits. His confirmation would stain the Senate and the judiciary for years to come if not permanently.

I will conclude by saying that Dr. Ford's incredible courage has helped me more than any therapy session. She spoke. In speaking her truth to power, she spoke for all of us.

I have shed so many tears watching and following these proceedings, but finally feel like I can stand tall, that I do not need to hide or live in shame. Her story is, in so many ways, my story. The smart girl who loved math and somehow made it through Stanford, completed a PhD, and embarked in a career in research despite the trauma that followed. . . .

All too often we hide behind a smile and mask of strength so that people do not see that inside we cannot stop shaking.

Lawmakers would be well advised to not underestimate the strength of our power when we raise our heads, shed our shame and reclaim our voices. We may tremble, but we will speak. We will be heard. We will NOT be dismissed.

Letter No. 32:

I am a victim of sexual abuse as a child, rape as a young adult, and sexual harassment during my professional career. I am also a successful practicing Child/Adolescent/Adult psychiatrist, with 20+ years of experience.

Since Ms. Ford's testimony, on Friday I saw two female walk-in patients, one of whom revealed to me her own sexual assault, which occurred around the time of Ms. Ford's. She confessed this is the first time she has told anyone about this. The other woman I saw that day told a similar story. From the press I understand crisis lines lit up all over our nation, doubling their traffic in some cases.

I write because I am worried. The press reports that only two of the three women making complaints against Mr. Kavanaugh will be interviewed by the FBI. . . .

I am concerned that only two of the three alleged victims . . . will be heard. To establish a pattern . . . the FBI must include as many credible victims and witnesses as possible . . . particularly given the timelines and deadlines they are up against.

Statistics on rape in the United States are shockingly high, higher even than many less developed countries.

She was concerned the FBI would not be able to speak and interview those who could corroborate the experiences. It turned out far worse than she could ever have imagined: 0 for 28--0 out of 28. Not, well, we talked to 5 out of 28. Not we talked to 8 out of 28. The FBI was 0 out of 28, not because the FBI would choose to do that but because they could only talk to people whom they were allowed to talk to by the President's scoping instructions. Those instructions were not to talk to anyone who had credible supporting information. That is such a violation of fairness, of due process, of justice.

There is that beautiful set of words carved into the front of the Supreme Court: ``Equal justice under law.'' Wouldn't anyone who had the right character to serve there have insisted--insisted--that these women get fair treatment? But we didn't hear Judge Kavanaugh insisting. He didn't even want an FBI investigation. He certainly didn't insist on there being one that actually talked to the people who had information. If your conscience is clean, if your life experience is clear, you don't fear an investigation.

This letter goes on:

Furthermore, currently our Congress and Senate do not reflect the 50.5% of Americans who are female. In fact, in 2017 US female representation by gender in Congress and the Senate was far lower in the US than Germany, France, United Kingdom, Sweden, Belgium, Netherlands and Spain.

She cites the source as the Inter-Parliamentary Union Parline Database on National Parliaments.

As a result we rely on men to understand and act on this predominantly female problem. American women depend on your gallantry to ensure our government does right by us.

I plead with you to persuade our leaders to do the right thing. Think of your mother, your wife, your daughter and the women you love. Show us we are valued. As you make your phone calls know American women watch with fear and hope. Don't let us down.

Did we treat Dr. Ford and Debbie Ramirez in the way we would want our mother, our wife, our daughter, or the women we love to be treated? No, we did not. She wrote asking for us to not let her down, and we have let her down. There is only one appropriate thing to do, and that is not to send this man who has bent and broken the truth many times before the U.S. Senate to the Supreme Court, not to send this man who has credible accusations of sexual assault that we were unwilling to investigate to the Court.

The letter next notes:

As a sexual assault survivor it's essential to me that no person who perpetuates such crimes ever sits in a position of power ever again.

That kind of sums it up.

This is letter No. 34. She says:

I am a 52 year old proud Oregonian woman. . . . I too am a victim and survivor of sexual abuse, and sadly a member of the ``Me too'' club. Should you confirm Judge Kavanaugh, you will be disrespecting every Me Too victim in America, young or old.

Victims of abuse are across the spectrum, and no doubt probably also in your families. Judge Kavanaugh is a nominee for a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court, an interviewee. HE IS NOT A VICTIM. . . .

I did find it, by the way, so disturbing to hear colleagues treat the women who come forward as the criminals and treat the nominee as the victim. That is exactly the type of inversion that women fear. That is exactly the type of reversal that has women deciding that they will never get a fair hearing, and it is exactly what happened right here in the U.S. Senate.

The letter continues:

Mrs. Ford was very brave in her testimony. . . .

All of you on the Judiciary Committee--WAKE UP! It is 2018, not 1991 with Clarence Thomas, we now acknowledge and believe victims that come forward to tell their stories, aka HER- stories.

We will never forget your actions in this confirmation process.

Well, the writer is saying it is 2018, not 1991, and yet we treated Dr. Ford and Debbie Ramirez worse--worse than we treated Anita Hill in 1991.

Letter No. 35 is a letter from Oregon constituents writing in to share their anger, their angst, their concern, their desire that women coming forward be treated fairly, their desire that we treat them seriously enough to actually talk to corroborating witnesses. Yet, unfortunately, we did not.

In letter No. 35, the woman writes:

I was also a victim of sexual assault when I was in graduate school. I never pursued that due to fear of consequences and feeling that this was my fault. This has to stop.

Letter No. 36:

Senator Merkley, I write to you today to urge you to vote no on the Kavanaugh nomination. The time has come for women to have a say in this society that men will listen to.

I am a victim of sexual abuse. My case happened when I was 22.

I never told anyone about my experience until I remarried 39 years ago.

I have an 8-year-old granddaughter, and I pray that she will not ever have to battle someone to save herself.

I am now 75, and I remember the exact time and place this incident occurred. One never forgets.

Letter No. 37:

I am myself a sexual assault survivor.

I listened to the testimony of Dr. Blasey Ford . . . last Thursday. It was clear to me that her testimony was credible.

The likelihood that she may not accurately recall the identity of her assailant, who was known to her before the assault, is extremely improbable. Trust me. It is not the sort of detail that an assault victim forgets.

The likelihood, on the other hand, that Brett Kavanaugh may have failed to remember assaulting a . . . woman when he was inebriated is quite probable. Not only does excessive alcohol consumption dull the memory, but males who think so little of women that they would thus assault them are likely to dismiss the experience from memory as inconsequential.

I implore you to continue to work tirelessly to encourage your colleagues to vote no on Kavanaugh's confirmation. . . . His integrity and character are in serious question, and he showed a total lack of judicial temperament. . . . I urge you to stand up.

I know these letters didn't just go to individuals on this side of the aisle. So I ask my colleagues, have you read the letters that you have received that have asked you to take seriously the experiences shared by Dr. Ford and by Debbie Ramirez? Have you taken them seriously? Did you insist that their corroborating witnesses be interviewed? The President's team says it consulted with the Senate's leadership on how the FBI investigation should be done. We now know that, in the way it was done, none of the 28 corroborating witnesses were talked to--none. Did you take seriously the women in your home States who wrote to you the way the women in my home State wrote to me?

Letter No. 38:

If the FBI's investigation was limited to Ford's and Ramirez' allegations and excludes the third credible allegation of Avenatti's client, it is wrong to cherry pick credibility. I emphatically state that this third allegation reflects my personal experience. I do not divulge this lightly. It happened to me when I was 14. It was both legally and morally wrong, and I never reported it.

This was in 1971 in Southern California. It was a recurrent event before I came to learn that others were victimized in the same manner--rendered unconscious in order to be engaged without consent. It seems incredible that I would end up attending other gatherings where individuals participating in such activities would also be, but, in fact, this is my experience as well.

One of my sisters--9 years younger--recounted that this culture existed during her high school years in a party environment in Northern California. In these environments, there are certain coalitions of males who covertly foster these environments, and the victim is typically isolated in some back room or even some hotel room.

Please maintain my anonymity, but take seriously the consideration of my deeply personal account. There are many qualified jurists who possess the appropriate qualities to sit on the highest Court of America.

That was letter 38. Yet there are so many more letters pouring into my office, reading: Take our experiences seriously. Take seriously the voices of Dr. Ford and Debbie Ramirez. This institution has failed them.

I ask you, are you comfortable voting for this nomination when this body did not hear from the individuals who had corroborating information and you did not invite them to testify? Even that was done in 1991. Are you comfortable voting to support this nomination when the FBI investigation was limited by a scoping document that excluded having interviews with any of the 28 people, put forward by the 2 victims, who had information to support them? Are you comfortable with that? You shouldn't be. You shouldn't be comfortable voting for a nominee who is under a shadow of allegations that we didn't even bother to explore.

It confirms everything that women across this country fear--that when they come forward and share their stories, they will not be taken seriously, that the system will be rigged, and that they will be blamed. Everything they saw in the way the Senate handled this situation was shameful and embarrassing and beneath the dignity of this body that should have given a stellar example of how to respect and investigate, but it did not.

My colleague from New York has arrived to share her thoughts. I thank her for her strong and fierce defense of women across this country who have suffered so much and been silent so often in fear they will be disrespected as the two women who came forward, Debbie Ramirez and Dr. Ford, feared they would be disrespected. This body confirmed every fear they had.

Let's not vote to put on the Supreme Court of the United States an individual who bent and broke the truth many times before the committee; an individual with a record--even, as we know, from his high school and college years--of abusing women; an individual of arrogance and anger; an individual with partisan sentiments; an individual who thinks the President is beyond the law; an individual who finds, time after time, for the powerful over the people. That is not the person who should be confirmed to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source