NYC TRANSGENDER RALLY FOR ISLAN NETTLES - WABC PKG It's been six months since Islan Nettles, a 21-year-old transgender woman, was beaten to death in Harlem and still no one has been charged with her murder. The lack of progress in the case has outraged many, including Nettles' family and other LGBT communities across the country, leading them to hold a rally in Manhattan on Thursday to call for accountability in the case. The rally will be held Thursday at 4pm at One Police Plaza in New York City. The Trans Women of Color Collective of Greater New York issued the follwing press release: "We will not be silent, we will not stand by while trans youth are murdered without recourse." says Lourdes Ashley Hunter, Community Organizer & Co-Founder of Trans Women of Color Collective (TWOCC) of Greater New York. "The NYPD and the District Attorney's office must be held accountable for their biased and botched investigation of Islan Nettles' murder." Activists have raised many troubling questions about the District Attorney & NYPD's negligence and mishandling of the case: It was revealed that no DNA evidence was collected from Paris Wilson at the scene of the crime, nor were witnesses rigorously questioned. Nor has it been explained why Simone Wilson, the suspect's mother, was never held accountable for falsifying evidence when she persuaded a friend of her son to make a false confession which was later recanted. And perhaps most inexplicably, the D.A.'s office is claiming that all 10 surveillance cameras in the vicinity of the beating that lead to Islan Nettles' death were broken. "Having survived a violent assault, I know what a struggle it can be to get justice in NY. Not one of my attackers was charged - and I was almost treated by the police as though I deserved to be assaulted," says Madison St. Claire, Co-Chair of Membership for TWOCC. "Now, the same thing is happening in the Islan Nettles case - and that sends the wrong message: that trans women of color are disposable - that our lives don't matter." says Madison. "Today, we send our own message NYPD & the DA's office: TRANS LIVES MATTER! As the press release notes, there were ten surveillance cameras in the vicinity of Nettles' August beating, but officers have reportedly said that none were working. Stay tuned.

The following is a list of David Susskind Shows possibly housed in a number off-site facilities--if they can be located at all. These listed programs HAVE NOT BEEN INSPECTED thus we cannot guarantee the existence, quality, duration or timely delivery of any of the material listed here. We offer access to these tapes on the following basis ONLY: All tapes are on their original 2" video format. The only way to verify the contents is to screen them, thus we will need to pull them from the inventory, ship and transfer them before we are able to verify content and quality. A $500 fee PER TAPE is required when ordering screening material from this collection. This fee is NON-REFUNDABLE. This fee will cover the cost of 2" tape handling, 2" Fed-Ex shipping (2-way) and 2" transfer. PLEASE NOTE THAT MANY SHOWS ARE ON TWO SEPARATE TAPES, THUS IT COULD COST DOUBLE ($1000) TO SCREEN SOME COMPLETE SHOWS. PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT EVEN IF YOU ORDER A SHOW BASED ON THE CATALOG NUMBER AND TITLE FROM THIS DATABASE WE CANNOT GUARANTEE THAT YOU WILL GET THE TAPE YOU ORDER. THIS IS BECAUSE THROUGH THE YEARS TAPES MAY HAVE BEEN PLACED IN THE INCORRECT CASES AND THE WRITTEN INFORMATION ON THE CASES IS ALL WE HAVE TO ID A TAPE BEFORE IT IS TRANSFERRED. WHILE WE WILL USE ALL EFFORTS TO EXPEDITE YOUR REQUEST, BUT WE CANNOT RUSH THE PROCESS, AND YOU ORDER THESE AT YOUR OWN RISK. IF WE DO NOT LOCATE THE TAPE THERE IS NO CHARGE, BUT IF WE DO AND IT IS REMOVED FROM THE FACILITY FOR TRANSFER, YOU WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THESE NON-REFUNDABLE FEES. THE DAVID SUSSKIND SHOW 1978-1979 06/24/78 09/24/78 PART I: BABIES FOR SALE -- THE BLACK MARKET IN CHILDREN DAVID LEAVITT, BETTY LIPMAN, LINDA, CONGRESSMAN HENRY HYDE, NANCY BAKER, ROBERT BURNS, JUNE MATZ 29243 CHICAGO 05/31/78 09/24/78 PART II: PORTRAIT OF A WELFARE MOTHER RENEE NATTER 29243 09/28/78 10/01/78 JOHN J. O' CONNOR 30703 CHICAGO 09/28/78 10/01/78 PART II: TURNING OFF THE TUBE -- LIFE WITHOUT TELEVISION A. CHILDREN: FRED IFRAH, DAWN KAYNO, DEREK LIPPNER, CHRISSY MAGLIOCCO, LEAH PIKE, DAVID STEINGLASS B. PARENTS & TEACHERS: JOYCE SUSSKIND, NANCY PIKE, BARBARA GOLDFARB, PAT MAGLIOCCO, JUDITY ROHN, TANYA KAUFMAN 30703 05/20/78 10/08/78 PART I: FED UP WITH THE SEXUAL REVOLUTION - SIX ASEXUALS GAIL RACHLIN, BILL PRIEST, DANIELLA GIOSEFFI, RICHARD MILNER, MARIAN TESSA, GARY NULL 29240 CHICAGO, DC 06/24/78 10/08/78 PART II: HOW TO COPE WITH LONELINESS ERICA ABEEL, DR. JAMES LYNCH, BRUCE JAY FRIEDMAN, TERRI SCHULTZ, MARK KLINGMAN 29240 DC 09/23/78 10/22/78 PART I: WE'RE MAD AS HELL -- THE RADIO CALL-IN RAGE JERRY WILLIAMS, ED SCHWARTZ, IRV HOMER, HERB JEPKO, BERNARD MELTZER 30702 CHICAGO 09/23/78 10/22/78 PART II: THINK RICH -- BE RICH JERRY GILLIS, H. STANLEY JUDD, IAN ANDERSON 30702 CHICAGO 10/12/78 10/29/78 PART I: CAN CARTER CUT IT IN 1980 HENRY GRUNWALD, NICHOLAS VON HOFFMAN, JERALD TER HORST, WILLIAM RUSHER 30706 CHICAGO 10/12/78 10/29/78 PART II: PSYCHICS WHO SOLVE CRIME DOROTHY ALLISON, BEVERLY JAEGERS, DAVID HOY, MIKE CASALE, SAL LUBERTAZZI 30706 CHICAGO 10/21/78 11/05/78 PART I: THE SWINGERS' PARADISE -- PLATO'S RETREAT MARY & LARRY LEVINSON, BONNIE & JACK, PHIL NOBILE 30709 CHICAGO, DC 10/21/78 11/05/78 PART II: "THE DOOMSDAY TAPES" BARDYL TIRANA, HERBERT SCOVILLE, LEONARD REIFEL, LEON GOURE 30709 05/31/78 11/12/78 THEY'RE STILL THE FUNNIEST MEN AROUND -- VETERAN COMICS MAC ROBBINS, JIMMY JOYCE, LARRY BEST, MICKEY FREEMAN, JOEY FAYE, LOU MENCHELL 29241 DC 11/04/78 11/19/78 PART I: DRESS FOR SUCCESS -- LOOK LIKE A MILLION -- MAKE A MILLION JOHN WEITZ, JOHN T. MOLLOY, EMILY CHO, WILLIAM THOURLBY, ROBERT L. GREEN 30710 CHICAGO 05/04/78 11/19/78 PART II: SUPER SALESMEN JOE GIRARD, LOIS BECKER, TOM WOLFF, BOB SHOOK 30710 CHICAGO 11/08/78 11/26/78 PART I: STARTLING STORIES OF LIFE AFTER DEATH DR. MAURICE RAWLINGS, CHARLES MCKAIG, VIRGINIA FALCY, KENNETH RING, HELEN NELSON, DR. MICHAEL SABOM 30712 CHICAGO 11/08/78 11/26/78 PART II: ANGRY CITIZENS VS THE POST OFFICE JAMES FINCH, BOB GRANT, ROBERT MEYERS, JAMES LAPENTA, PAT BRENNAN 30712 CHICAGO 11/22/78 12/03/78 PART I: SURGEON/SALESMAN -- BILL MACKAY 30714 DC 11/22/78 12/03/78 PART II: LONELY, UNHAPPY & BROKE -- DISPLACED HOMEMAKERS FLORENCE GRIFFIN, JACQUELINE BACHMAN, LESLIE WALD WALDHORN, SANDRA JACOBS, JANE LEE LITTLETON 30714 CHICAGO, DC 12/02/78 12/10/78 PART I: IF BETTY FORD COULD DO IT...ALL ABOUT FACELIFTS RICHARD KIELING, LILLIAM FRASER, D. RALPH MILLARD, M.D., DORIS LILLY, MICHAEL HOGAN, M.D. 30716 CHICAGO 12/02/78 12/10/78 PART II: TO JOG OR NOT TO JOG DAVID BRODY, M.D., DAVID NOONAN, RICHARD A. SCHWARTZ, M.D., RICHARD RESTAK, M.D., PAUL FETSCHER 30716 CHICAGO 09/16/78 12/17/78 WE WANT A BABY -- NEW HOPE FOR INFERTILE COUPLES A. PATIENTS: SUSAN & LEE WELLING, CAROL & ERNEST D'ANGELO, CATHY & JOHN SCOTT B. EXPERTS: DR. WAYNE DECKER, DR. ALVIN GOLDFARB, DR. RICHARD SHERINS, BARBARA ECK MENNING, DR. LUIGI MASTROIANNI 30701 11/29/78 12/24/78 PART I: YOUR PAMPERED PET -- FROM SHRINK TO MINK DR. PETER BORCHELT, DR. DANIEL TORTORA, DR. ALBERT LAMPASSO, MORDECAI SEGAL, LOIS LANDAUER, KAREN THOMPSON, GEORGE JEWEL 30715 CHICAGO 11/29/78 12/24/78 PART II: MIND YOUR MANNERS -- THE NEW ETIQUETTE LETITIA BALDRIGE, JUDITH MARTIN, MARJABELLE YOUNG STEWART 30715 CHICAGO 10/07/78 01/14/79 06/24/79 PART I: THE DIET THAT CAN SAVE YOUR LIFE -- PRO & CON A. PATIENTS: BILL UTTAL, JULIE BREAKSTONE, FRED SILVER, DR. HARRY PARKER, JOE HUME B. EXPERTS: NATHAN PRITIKIN, DR. SAMI SASHIM, DR. ROBERT E. BAUER, DR. STEPHEN SCHEIDT 30704 CHICAGO 10/12/78 01/14/79 06/24/79 PART II: A CONVERSATION WITH THE BRILLIANT PETER USTINOV 30704 CHICAGO 12/09/78 01/21/79 PART I: THE PRIEST WHO FIGHTS PIMPS FATHER BRUCE RITTER 30711 CHICAGO, DC 11/04/78 01/21/79 PART II: MAKING INFLATION WORK FOR YOU HARRY BROWNE, DAN DORFMAN 30711 CHICAGO, DC 12/09/78 01/28/79 PART I: LONG LINES, SHORT TEMPERS -- THE AIRPORT MESS KAY SLOMAN, HARRY KLETTER, ROB MANGOLD, FRED FORD, KAREN ZUPKO, STEVE BIRNBAUM 30717 CHICAGO, DC 12/09/78 01/28/79 PART II: ARE YOU REALLY IN LOVE? DR. DEBORA PHILLIPS, DR. CHARLIE SHEDD, DR. STANTON PEELE 30717 CHICAGO, DC 01/13/79 02/04/79 PART I: WE ARE BI-SEXUALS LARRY KANE, TONI TUCCI, DR. FRED KLEIN, "JULIA", "JOANNE" 30720 CHICAGO, DC 01/27/79 02/04/79 PART II: TREASURE HUNTERS MEL FISHER, EUGENE LYON, ART MCKEE 30720 CHICAGO, DC 01/06/79 02/11/79 INSIDE THE CULTS: THE TERRIFYING TRUTH FROM EX-MEMBERS PART 1 - EX-MEMBERS: SUSAN SMITH, CHRIS EDWARDS, MORRIS DEUTSCH, STEVE HASSAN, ANDREW STUBBS PART II - EXPERTS: FLO CONWAY, JIM SEIGELMAN, GALEN KELLY, DR. JOHN CLARK 30718 CHICAGO, DC 01/27/79 02/18/79 PART I: MEN WHO ARE KEPT BY WOMEN: TRUE CONFESSIONS REAL, MICHEL, MARK, PAUL, LOU 30721 CHICAGO, DC 01/27/79 02/18/79 PART II: THE TRUTH ABOUT ASPIRIN DR. LOUIS ALEDORT, DR. THOMAS KANTOR, DR. DAVID CODDON, PAUL E. SCHINDLER 30721 CHICAGO, DC 02/03/79 02/25/79 PART I: BEAUTIFUL WOMEN SHARE THEIR SECRETS (HOSTED BY JOYCE SUSSKIND) BEVERLY SASSOON, ADRIEN ARPEL, CRISTINA FERRARE 30722 CHICAGO, DC 02/03/79 02/25/79 PART II: WHEN YOUR PARENTS GROW OLD JOHN PERRY, RITA SIGLER, BARBARA FELDMAN, MARIE CARROLL, JERRY ORNSTEIN 30722 CHICAGO, DC 02/10/79 03/04/79 TRUMAN CAPOTE TELLS ALL TRUMAN CAPOTE 30723 CHICAGO (T), UCLA (2"), DC 11/18/78 03/11/79 PART I: WE CAN'T STOP DIETING -- VICTIMS OF ANOREXIA STEVEN LEVENKRON, KATIE, PATRICIA DE POL, ROBERTA, LISA WOLFF 30713 CHICAGO, DC 11/18/78 03/11/79 PART II: WHEN FEAR TAKES OVER -- AGORAPHOBIA JEAN ESTERBROOK, JOEL GREENBAUM, EILEEN WEBBER, MARIA WEBBER, DR. MANUEL ZANE 30713 CHICAGO, DC 02/28/79 03/18/79 PART I: WILD & CRAZY PAPARAZZI -- PHOTOGRAPHERS WHO SHOOT THE STARS RON GALELLA, ADAM SCULL, DICK CORKERY, GENE SPATZ 30725 CHICAGO, DC 02/28/79 03/18/79 PART II: IT'S NOT SO GREAT IN BRITAIN FRED HIFT, REX BERRY, ROBIN DUTHY, VALERIE WADE 30725 CHICAGO, DC 01/13/79 03/25/79 PART I: THINGS TO COME -- LIFE IN THE YEAR 2000 ISAAC ASIMOV, FRANK KENDIG, DR. JERRY POURNELLE 30719 DC 02/28/79 03/25/79 PART II: HAPPINESS IS A POSSIBLE DREAM DR. JONATHAN FREEDMAN, LYNN CAINE, JOAN, BOB DRESNER, BOB GOODRICH 30719 CHICAGO, DC 03/24/79 KHJ-TV, LA 04/01/79 THE TELEVISION CRISIS MICHAEL DANN, PAUL KLEIN, GRANT TINKER, NORMAN LEAR, DAVID GERBER 30726 CHICAGO, DC 02/10/79 04/08/79 HOT GOSSIP ABOUT THE BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE RUDY MAXA, CLAUDIA COHEN, NEAL TRAVIS 30724 CHICAGO 03/31/79 04/08/79 PITY THE HAPPY HOUSEWIFE JUDITH VIORST, MARY KUCZKIR, ANN TOLAND SERB, JOAN WESTER ANDERSON 30724 CHICAGO 04/15/78 04/15/79 MIRROR, MIRROR ON THE WALL -- THE BEAUTIFUL AND THE UGLY TELL ALL GUESTS -- MODELS AND SELF-PROCLAIMED UGLIES: MATT COLLINS, CATHY MORRIS, DANNY LEE MCCOY, JEAN SOKOL, SUZANNE FELZEN, SUSAN BRECHT EXPERTS: FRANCESCO SCAVULLO, MICHAEL HOGAN, M.D., ADRIEN ARPEL, SUSAN GREEN, PH.D 29232 CHICAGO, DC 04/14/79 04/22/79 IS CARTER A CATASTROPHE? ELIOT JANEWAY, WILLIE L. BROWN, JR., ROBERT H. MALOTT, WILLIAM W. WINPISINGER 30728 CHICAGO, DC 04/28/79 05/06/79 PART I: LEE MARVIN, WHAT HAVE YOU DONE? MARVIN MITCHELSON, MELVYN HABER, SUNNIE SOBEL, NORMAN M. SHERESKY, HERBERT A. GLIEBERMAN 30730 CHICAGO, DC 04/28/79 05/06/79 PART II: THE INCREDIBLE TRUTH ABOUT HOWARD HUGHES JAMES B. STEELE, DONALD L. BARTLETT 30730 DC 03/31/79 05/13/79 PART I: DEAR ANN LANDERS... ANN LANDERS 30727 CHICAGO, DC 03/31/79 05/13/79 PART II: THE CULTS ANSWER BACK GADDAHAR PANDIT DAS, RABINDRA SWAROOP DAS, DIANE KETTERING, ARTIE MAREN 30727 CHICAGO, DC 05/11/79 KCOP, LA 05/20/79 THE MAN WHO WOULD BE PRESIDENT: JERRY BROWN GOVERNOR JERRY BROWN, CALIFORNIA 30732 CHICAGO (T), UCLA, DC 05/19/79 06/03/79 PART I: WATCH OUT! HOWARD JARVIS IS COMING HOWARD JARVIS, JOHN L. LOEB, JR., JAMES FARMER, STEPHEN BERGER 30733 CHICAGO, DC 05/19/79 06/03/79 PART II: HOW TO SLASH YOUR FOOD BILLS IN HALF ARLENE STOLARSKI, PATTI UMLAND, MARY ANNE HAYES, SUSAN SAMTUR 30733 05/27/79 06/10/79 PART I: SHOULD YOU BUY A HOUSE NOW -- OR NEVER? DONALD I. HOVDE, BENNY KASS, WILLIAM WOLMAN, MICHAEL SUMICHRAST 30734 CHICAGO, DC 05/19/79 06/10/79 PART II: MALE SECRETARIES DONALD HARLEY, CHARLES W. BARKER, JOSEPH R. LICCARDO, ANTHONY ZATTI, KEITH M. WHITE 30734 DC 06/03/79 06/17/79 PART I: HOW TO LIVE WITH CONSTANT PAIN PATIENTS: HERBERT A. DIAMOND, BARBARA B. WOLF, ROSALIE TERRAVECCHIA DOCTORS: DR. GERALD ARONOFF, DR. DONALD M. DOOLEY, DR. NELSON H. HENDLER, DR. HAROLD CARRON 30736 CHICAGO, DC 06/03/79 06/17/79 PART II: THE MAN WHO GIVES ADVICE TO ANN LANDERS DR. EUGENE KENNEDY 30736 CHICAGO, DC 06/23/79 07/01/79 PART I: OUT OF GAS -- WHO'S TO BLAME? LESLIE J. GOLDMAN, JAMES F. FLUG, CHARLES KITTRELL, SENATOR HOWARD M. METZENBAUM 30738 CHICAGO, DC 06/23/79 07/01/79 PART II: "THE FLYING WHITE HOUSE" COLONEL RALPH ALBERTAZZIE 30738 CHICAGO, DC THE DAVID SUSSKIND SHOW 1979-80 05/26/79 04/14/79 10/07/79 04/19/81 DAVID SUSSKIND MEETS THE MARTIANS A. LYDIA STALNAKER, BRYCE BOND B. RUTH NORMAN, THOMAS MILLER 30729 CHICAGO, DC 09/22/79 10/14/79 PART I: ORGANIZED CRIME: THE BIGGEST BUSINESS IN AMERICA HANK H. MESSICK, RICHARD E. JAFFE, RALPH F. SALERNO, JACK KEY, THOMAS RENNER 32101 CHICAGO 09/22/79 10/14/79 PART II: BATTLE OVER BLACK ENGLISH MICHAEL MEYERS, DR. GENEVA SMITERMAN, DR. ELAINE LEWNAU, ETTA LADSOM 32101 CHICAGO 10/13/79 10/28/79 THE BLACK-JEWISH CRISIS DR. JOSEPH E. LOWERY, ARNOLD FORSTER, RANDALL ROBINSON, HOWARD M. SQUADRON 32105 CHICAGO 11/03/79 10/28/79 THE KENNEDY-CARTER SHOWDOWN ALLARD K. LOWENSTEIN, ARTHUR SCHLESINGER, JR., STUART EIZENSTAT, GERALD M. RAFSHOON 32109 CHICAGO, DC 10/27/79 11/11/79 09/07/80 03/28/82 PART I: SEX FOR SALE...4 "JOHNS' TELL ALL TOM, MARK, HUGH, GEORGE 32107 CHICAGO (T), DC 10/17/79 11/11/79 09/07/80 03/28/82 PART II: IS STRESS KILLING YOU? JOHN J. PARRINO, PH.D, KENNETH GREENSPAN, M.D. 32107 CHICAGO, DC 04/28/79 11/18/79 09/28/80 05/31/81 THE BARE FACTS: QUEENS OF BURLESQUE GEORGIA SOTHERN, ZORITA, SHERRY BRITTON, HOPE DIAMOND 30731 CHICAGO, DC 06/23/79 11/18/79 09/28/80 05/31/81 SUPER SALESWOMEN DOT COOK, ANDREA BERRITY, LINDA SCHMITT, SHIRLEY HUTTON 30731 CHICAGO 06/09/79 11/25/79 07/06/80 PART I: RICH & FEMALE - WOMEN WHO MAKE MILLIONS MURIEL SIEBERT, MARY ANN HALMI, EVA HORTON, DAISY TALLARICO, JOAN LEVINE 30737 CHICAGO, DC 06/09/79 11/25/79 07/06/80 PART II: GOTHIC WRITERS ROBERTA ANDERSON & MARY KUCZKIR (FERN MICHAELS), JANET DAILEY, PATRICIA MATTHEWS 30737 CHICAGO, DC 10/06/79 12/02/79 PART I: "BREAKING UP IS HARD TO TAKE" -- CHILDREN OF DIVORCE DON, CAREN, LIZ, GILLIAN, LISA 32102 CHICAGO 09/29/79 12/02/79 PART II: "THE WICKED TRUTH ABOUT STEP PARENTS" WILLIAM NOBLE, SUZY KALTER, MARCIA WYRTZEN, JEANETTE LOFAS, BOB MARTIN 32102 CHICAGO 10/27/79 12/09/79 PART I: LIARS BEWARE -- THE LATEST IN LIE DETECTION CHRIS GUGAS 32108 CHICAGO 10/06/79 12/09/79 PART II: THE RED BERETS -- TEENAGE VIGILANTES CURTIS SLIWA, DINO REYES, KATO, JEFF MONROE, JERRY MONROE, ET. AL. 32108 CHICAGO 11/10/79 12/16/79 07/13/80 PART I: HOW TO TEST YOUR DOG'S I.Q. AND PERSONALITY MATTHEW MARGOLIS 32115 CHICAGO 12/03/79 12/16/79 07/13/80 PART II: DAZZLING WOMEN FROM ABROAD LIVIA SLYVA WEINTRAUB, JACLINE MAZARD (JEAN MAHIE), REGINE, GEORGETTE KLINGER, PRINCESS SUMAIR 32115 CHICAGO 11/17/79 12/23/79 HOW TO PROSPER DURING THE COMING BAD YEARS HOWARD RUFF 32114 CHICAGO, DC 12/15/79 12/23/79 07/27/80 PART II: CHINA TODAY -- A CONVERSATION WITH HAN SUYIN HAN SUYIN 32114 32121 CHICAGO, DC 11/10/79 01/06/80 08/17/80 ARE YOUR TEENAGERS DRIVING YOU CRAZY? HELP IS HERE! DR. THOMAS J. COTTLE, ELIZABETH ROBERTS, DR. DAVID ELKIND, EDITH B. PHELPS, ELIOT DALEY 32110 CHICAGO 11/24/79 01/13/80 10/26/80 PART I: SHORT PEOPLE HAVE FEELINGS TOO! PAMELA BROWN, MIKE PARADINE, BILL GILE, NANCY HENKEL, IRWIN HASEN 32111 CHICAGO 10/17/79 01/13/80 10/26/80 PART II: LAUGHTER IS THE BEST MEDICINE NORMAN COUSINS 32111 CHICAGO 12/15/79 01/20/80 07/20/80 PART I: OWNERS OF GREAT RESTAURANTS TELL THEIR SECRETS SHELDON TANNEN "21"; WARNER LEROY, MAXWELL'S PLUM, TAVERN ON THE GREEN; EDMUND LILLYS, THE GLOUCESTER HOUSE; SIRIO MACCIONE, LE CIRQUE; VINCENT SARDI, JR., SARDI'S; PETER ASCHKENASY, U.S. STEAK-HOUSE, LUCHOW'S, CHARLEY O'S, AND THE AMERICAN CHARCUTERIE. 32117 CHICAGO 01/12/80 01/20/80 07/20/80 PART II: MAITRE D'S OF GREAT RESTAURANTS JOSEPH GARNI, LE CIRQUE; BRUNO MOLINARI, THE PALM; GIANNI GARAVELLI, NANNI AL VALLETTO; JEAN-CLAUDE COUTELLER, LE PERIGORD EAST 32117 CHICAGO 09/29/79 01/27/80 A MEDIUM WHO TALKS TO THE DEAD -- DORIS STOKES DORIS STOKES 32103 CHICAGO 11/17/79 02/03/80 10/05/80 PART I: PROSTITUTES TELL ALL "NINA", "CATHERINE", AND "MELINDA" 32112 CHICAGO, DC 01/12/80 02/03/80 10/05/80 PART II: WOMEN AGAINST PORNOGRAPHY DOLORES ALEXANDER, JANE MCHUGH, FRANCES PATAI, AND BARBARA MEHRHOF 32112 CHICAGO, DC 01/26/80 02/10/80 WHAT'S NEW WITH JACKIE, SINATRA, STREISAND, BEATTY, MINNELLI AND REYNOLDS, TOO LIZ SMITH, CHICAGO TRIBUNE-NEW YORK DAILY NEWS; TAKI THEODORACOPULOS, ESQUIRE; DAVID SHEEHAN, DIANA MCLELLAN, "THE EAR", IN THE WASHINGTON STAR 32119 11/24/79 02/17/80 09/21/80 12/13/81 PART I: LIFE AT THE TOP -- WIVES OF FAMOUS MEN JOYCE DAVIDSON SUSSKIND, NANCY MEHTA, MARILYN FUNT, NORRIS CHURCH 32113 CHICAGO, DC 11/17/79 02/17/80 09/21/80 12/13/81 PART II: ALL ABOUT THE CIA THOMAS POWERS, "THE MAN WHO KEPT THE SECRETS: RICHARD HELMS AND THE C.I.A." 32113 DC 01/12/80 02/24/80 09/14/80 MOVIE STARS CAME TO DINNER -- GROWING UP IN HOLLYWOOD JILL ROBINSON, "BED TIME STORY" AND "PERDIDO"; MICHAEL KORDA, "CHARMED LIVES"; WARNER LEROY, LINDA JANKLOW, BROOKE HAYWARD, "HAYWIRE". 32118 CHICAGO 02/02/80 02/24/80 09/14/80 PART II: GARBAGE OF THE STARS A. J. WEBERMAN, GARBOLOGIST 32118 CHICAGO 02/02/80 03/02/80 07/27/80 PART I: WE'RE HIGH ON BEING TALL GEORGE ANDREWS - 6'6", JUDY VOGEL - 6', CECILIA GARDNER - 6'1", KERRY KEANE - 6'6", TERRY LEE - 5'11", ALICE WHITE - 6' 32121 CHICAGO 02/02/80 03/02/80 PART II: SIZING UP THE NEWSCASTERS PHILIP MCHUGH 32121 12/03/79 03/09/80 08/24/80 PART I: 5 NEW YORK CABBIES TELL ALL MEL BENDOWITZ, EZRA CHITYAT, JAMES MORRIS, RICHARD CHEROL, LOIS DOYLE 32116 CHICAGO (T) 12/15/79 03/09/80 08/24/80 PART II: GOING BANANAS IN BEVERLY HILLS ELAINE YOUNG, JACK STARTZ, M.D., RONALD RICE, JUDY MAZEL 32116 CHICAGO 02/23/80 03/16/80 05/03/81 11/13/83 PART I: WE TAKE IT ALL OFF -- MALE STRIPPERS JACK THE STRIPPER, SEBASTIAN, CAREY GORDON, SUNSHINE, BERNARDO 32123 CHICAGO, DC 03/01/80 03/16/80 05/03/81 11/13/83 PART II: MUSCLES AND CURVES -- WOMEN BODY BUILDERS DORIS BARRILLEAUX, LYNDE JOHNSON, LYNN CONKWRIGHT, APRIL NICOTRA 32123 DC 03/01/80 03/23/80 08/03/80 PART I: THE DATING SERVICE FOR WINNER 'THE GODMOTHER' , ABBY HIRSCH CLIENTS: BARBARA WRENN, DOUGLAS RIPPETO, MITCHEL MITCHEL, BABTTE GLADSTEIN 32126 CHICAGO 02/23/80 03/23/80 08/03/80 PART II: THE GIRL WHO HAD EVERYTHING - DORIEN LEIGH DORIAN LEIGH 32126 CHICAGO 01/26/80 02/09/80 03/30/80 08/10/80 THE NEW REVOLUTION IN FOOD AND FUEL - A CONVERSATION WITH DWAYNE ANDREAS MR. DWAYNE ANDREAS, CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF ARCHER DANIELS MIDLAND COMPANY 32120 CHICAGO, DC 02/09/80 04/06/80 PART I: OUR HIDDEN SHAME: DYSLEXIA ARTHUR BIRSH, DELOS SMITH, EILEEN SIMPSON -- REVERSALS: A PERSONAL ACCOUNT OF VICTORY OVER DYSLEXIA, LYNNE HACKER, EMILY LANDAU, DANIEL GILDESGAME 32122 CHICAGO 02/23/80 04/06/80 PART II: THE NATIONAL LAMPOON P.J. O'ROURKE, GERALD SUSSMAN, TOD CARROLL, JOHN HUGHES 32122 CHICAGO 03/22/80 04/13/80 GORE VIDAL UNCENSORED 32130 CHICAGO, DC 03/08/80 04/20/80 PART I: APOCALYPSE SOON: A CONVERSATION WITH WILLIAM SIMON WILLIAM SIMON, FORMER TREASURY SECRETARY 32127 CHICAGO 03/22/80 04/20/80 PART II: BEWARE OF PICKPOCKETS CARL LEWIS, DETECTIVE ROBERT MAGONE 32127 CHICAGO 03/15/80 04/27/80 01/31/82 PART I: THE SHAME OF OUR HOSPITALS -- FIVE ANGRY NURSES 'CAROL', 'REBECCA', 'ELEANOR', 'RUTH' AND 'HELEN' 32129 CHICAGO, DC 03/29/80 04/27/80 01/31/82 PART II: DR. WILLIAM NOLEN WILLIAM A. NOLEN, M.D. 32129 CHICAGO 04/26/80 05/04/80 SEX IN AMERICA -- AN INTERVIEW WITH GAY TALESE GAY TALESE, AUTHOR: THY NEIGHBOR'S WIFE 32135 CHICAGO 03/29/80 05/11/80 PART I: SOFT, SWEET AND SOUTHERN -- 6 BELLES FROM DIXIE PHYLLIS MACBRYDE, REBECCA SINGLETON, NANCY BELLE BRASS, MARY MCMILLAN, ROSEMARY DANIELL; AUTHOR: FATAL FLOWERS; MARY VANN HUNTER; AUTHOR: SASSAFRAS 32132 CHICAGO 04/19/80 05/11/80 PART II: SOUTHERN JOURNALISTS TALK ABOUT JIMMY CARTER AND OTHER GOOD OLE BOYS LARRY KING, AUTHOR: OF OUTLAWS, CON MEN, WHORES, POLITICIANS AND OTHER ARTISTS; MARSHALL FRADY, AUTHOR: SOUTHERNERS; ROY BLOUNT, JR., AUTHOR: CRACKERS 32132 CHICAGO 05/10/80 05/18/80 HOW DID IT HAPPEN -- CARTER VS REAGAN TOM WICKER, THE NEW YORK TIMES; ALBERT R. HUNT, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL; WILLIAM A. RUSHER, NATIONAL REVIEW; HAYNES JOHNSON, THE WASHINGTON POST 32137 CHICAGO (T) 04/26/80 05/25/80 PART I: THE SPORTS EMPIRE OF SONNY WERBLIN SONNY WERBLIN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE MADISON SQUARE GARDEN CORPORATION 32134 CHICAGO, DC 05/03/80 05/25/80 PART II: THE LAST OF THE COWBOYS -- 5 TRUCKERS RUSSELL "CAPTAIN ZIG-ZAG" PATE, GEORGE "WILDMAN" RAWLS, ED "SKY PILOT" WINTERSTEEN, MIKE "DOUBLE R" CRAKER, JAMES "BUCKY" BUCKOWSKI 32134 CHICAGO, DC 03/08/80 06/01/80 PART I: BEAT INFLATION WITH DIAMONDS, ART, STAMPS AND COINS NICOLA BULGARI, RICHARD L. FEIGEN, RAYMOND WEIL AND HARVEY STACK 32128 CHICAGO 03/15/80 06/01/80 PART II: HOLLYWOOD PRODUCER -- JENNINGS LANG JENNINGS LANG 32128 CHICAGO 04/19/80 06/08/80 PART I: INFLATION IS KILLING US! 5 ANGRY VICTIMS NITA DENNIS, JOE CURLEY, JOSEPH MULHOLLAND, ANNE AND GEORGE ANDREWS 32133 CHICAGO 04/19/80 06/08/80 PART II: MIND OVER BODY -- A DEMONSTRATION OF THE MARTIAL ARTS LINDA LUTES AND NELSON HOWE 32133 CHICAGO 05/24/80 06/15/80 PART I: UPDATE ON MEDICAL BREAKTHROUGHS -- DR. ISADORE ROSENFELD ISADORE ROSENFELD, M.D. 32140 CHICAGO, DC 05/24/80 06/15/80 PART II: A CONVERSATION WITH CORINNA MARSH CORINNA MARSH 32140 CHICAGO, DC 06/07/80 06/22/80 WHY ARE THE BULLS RUNNING ON WALL STREET JOSEPH GRANVILLE, BURTON MALKIEL, DAVID DREMAN, RAYMOND DEVOE, JOHN NEFF 32142 CHICAGO, DC 06/04/80 06/29/80 PART I: WORKAHOLICS ON THE JOYS OF WORKING FLORENCE HASELTINE, M.D., RICHARD ROYCE, LIZ FILLO, FRANK S. BERGER, LAWRENCE A. SUSSER, M.D. 32141 CHICAGO 05/24/80 06/29/80 PART II: THE TWO PAYCHECK MARRIAGE JUDY HUNT, CHARLES MITCHELL, MEG WHITCOMB, JEANNE CANTEEN, PRATT 32141 CHICAGO THE DAVID SUSSKIND SHOW 1980-81 10/06/80 10/12/80 A DESPERATE TIME -- WILLIAM SIMON ON THE STATE OF THE UNION FORMER TREASURE SECRETARY, WILLIAM E. SIMON 33605 CHICAGO, DC 10/18/80 10/19/80 A CONVERSATION WITH HAL GULLIVER HAROLD GULLIVER, EDITOR, ATLANTA CONSTITUTION 33606 CHICAGO 09/17/80 11/02/80 07/05/81 PART I: BIG, BEAUTIFUL WOMEN -- NO SIN TO BE A SIZE 18 MADALINE SPARKS, ILVIRA TORTORA, BARBARA BETZA, STELLA REICHMAN, LILLIAM NILSON 33602 CHICAGO, DC 10/06/80 11/02/80 07/05/81 PART II: IS THIN STILL "IN"? SUZIE BERTIN, JILL DIRKS, JOHNA JOHNSON, BARBARA PEARLMAN 33602 CHICAGO, DC 05/17/80 11/09/80 10/04/81 PART I: MEET AND MARRY THROUGH THE PERSONAL ADS JUDI MCMAHON, BILL JAMES, STEPHEN T., HEYMANN, STEPHANIE KAPILIAN, BOB EVANS 32139 CHICAGO, DC 05/17/80 11/09/80 10/04/81 PART II: NO KIDS FOR US PLEASE ANNE SEIFERT, WALTER CALLAHAN, BARBARA COFFEY, DOROTHY WILSON, IVAN MENDELSON 32139 CHICAGO, DC 09/17/80 11/16/80 07/12/81 PART I: LIFE AFTER DARK -- NIGHT PEOPLE TELL ALL RICHARD WEXLER, CINDY CAPALDO, BLEECKER BOB PLOTNIK, ABLE ABEL, SAVARIO COSTANZA 33601 CHICAGO, DC 10/18/80 11/16/80 07/12/81 PART II: SUPER FANS OF THE STARS BETTY BRINKENHOFF (FRANK SINATRA), DENIS FERRARA (ELIZABETH TAYLOR), DOLORES TRANDAHL (ELVIS PRESLEY), NEAL PETERS (ANN MARGRET) 33601 CHICAGO, DC 05/03/80 11/23/80 09/20/81 PART I: WOMEN RATE MEN: LOVERS AND LOSERS NAN ROBERTSON, SUSANNA HOFFMAN, CAROL BOTWIN 32136 CHICAGO, DC 06/04/80 11/23/80 09/20/81 PART II: MEN ANSWER BACK ANTHONY HADEN-GUEST, MARTIN SAGE, WILLIAMS HOOTKINS, HARRY STEIN 32136 CHICAGO, DC 09/27/80 11/30/80 PART I: THE JEANING OF AMERICA -- MODELS, MOGULS AND MAKERS JOSEPH NAKASH (JORDACHE), PAUL GUEZ (SASSON), WARREN HIRSH (GLORIA VANDERBILT) 33603 CHICAGO 11/19/80 11/30/80 PART II: NOT FOR WOMEN ONLY -- MEN'S COSMETICS TONY CARVETTE (GEORGETTE KLINGER), TOM DAY (CLINIQUE), JAN STUART (JAN STUART), CHIP TOLBERT (MEN'S FASHION ASSOCIATION), PAUL WILMOT (HALSTON) 33603 CHICAGO 11/24/80 12/07/80 08/02/81 PART I: A MAN FOR ALL REASONS: YALE PRESIDENT, A. BARTLETT GIAMATTI 33609 CHICAGO 11/24/80 12/07/80 08/02/81 PART II: A CONVERSATION WITH MICHAEL THOMAS MICHAEL THOMAS, AUTHOR GREEN MONDAY 33609 CHICAGO 11/24/80 12/14/80 07/18/81 PART I: ARE LAWYERS RUINING OUR LIVES? PHILIP M. STERN, GEOFFREY C. HAZARD, FRANK R. ROSINY, ALAN B. MORRISON, JUDGE WILLIAM B. LAWLESS 33607 CHICAGO, DC 11/16/80 12/14/80 PART II: NORMAN DACEY, ROSEMARY FURMAN 33607 12/17/80 12/21/80 08/30/81 PART I: FEELING GOOD ALL UNDER -- THE ELEGANT NEW LINGERIE REBECCA ASPAN, BELL TICE, ORA FEDER, DAVID STIFFLER, SAMI 33613 CHICAGO 12/17/80 12/21/80 08/30/81 PART II: BEST FRIENDS AND BEST SELLERS CONSUELO BAEHR, SUSAN ISAACS, HILMA WOLITZER 33613 CHICAGO 12/14/80 12/28/80 THE REMARKABLE JONATHAN SCHWARTZ -- A SPECIAL PERFORMANCE JONATHAN SCHWARTZ 33612 CHICAGO, DC 12/03/80 01/04/81 PART I: A HOUSE IS NOT A HOME -- CONGRESSMEN WHO QUIT OTIS G. PIKE, JAMES P. JOHNSON, JOE WYATT, JR. 33610 CHICAGO (T) 12/17/80 01/04/80 PART II: A CONVERSATION WITH STUDS TERKEL STUDS TERKEL 33610 CHICAGO (T) 01/07/81 01/11/81 09/13/81 PART I: THE INCREDIBLE WORLD OF MOTHER TERESA JOYCE DAVIDSON SUSSKIND 33608 CHICAGO, DC 11/19/80 01/11/81 09/13/81 PART II: HOW TO SUCCEED? GO TO BUSINESS SCHOOL SUSAN THOMAS, JED DALY, ROBERT FRIEDMAN, JAY ESSEY, ELIZABETH CLOSTERMAN 33608 CHICAGO, DC 01/12/81 01/18/81 04/15/84 PART I: WATCH YOUR LANGUAGE JOHN SIMON, RICHARD MITCHELL, EDWIN NEWMAN 33611 CHICAGO 12/03/80 01/18/81 PART II: WHERE THE BODIES ARE BURIED -- WASHINGTON LOWDOWN DONALD LAMBRO, CHARLES PETERS, MICHAEL J. MALBIN, FRANK SILBEY 33611 CHICAGO 01/21/81 01/25/81 PART I: JUNK FOOD JUNKIES RICHARD SMITH, DAVID NOONAN, MAGGIE MULHEARN, BUFFALO GEORGE TOOMER 33616 CHICAGO (T) 01/21/81 01/25/81 PART II: HOW TO IMPROVE YOUR EATING HABITS RICHARD S. RIVLIN, M.D., RICHARD PASSWATER, DR. ROBERT PALMER, JOSEPH RECHTSCHAFFEN, M.D. 33616 CHICAGO 01/24/81 02/01/81 THE BEST AND WORST MOVIES: FILM CRITICS JANET MASLIN, ANDREW SARRIS, JACK KROLL, GENE SISKEL 33617 CHICAGO (T) 01/07/81 02/08/81 08/23/81 PART I: TAKE THOSE INCHES OFF! SHAPE UP WITH EXERCISE MARJORIE CRAIG, LYDIA BACH, CHARLES GAINES, MARUSCHKA 33614 CHICAGO 01/24/81 02/08/81 08/23/81 PART II: THE ESTABLISHMENT LEONARD AND MARK SILK, STEPHEN BIRMINGHAM 33614 CHICAGO 02/11/81 02/15/81 CELEBRITY WATCHING WITH LIZ SMITH, TAKI, JAMES BRADY AND JODY JACOBS 33620 CHICAGO 02/18/81 02/22/81 HOW TO SURVIVE AND PROSPER IN THE 80s HOWARD RUFF, DOUGLAS CASEY, JEROME SMITH, THOMAS HOLT 33621 CHICAGO 02/11/81 03/01/81 08/09/81 PART I: PRETTY BABIES -- THE NEW TEEN-AGE MODELS BETTINA, LORI LOUGHLIN, CATHLEEN ESS, FELICE SCHACHTER, LENA REID 33619 CHICAGO 02/07/81 03/01/81 08/09/81 PART II: ARE YOUR CHILDREN BECOMING ADULTS TOO SOON? DR. AARON HASS, PATRICIA O'BRIEN, ARTHUR KORNHABER, M.D., ADELE HOFFMAN, M.D. 33619 CHICAGO 02/21/81 03/08/81 BIGOTRY RIDES AGAIN WILLIAM SLOANE COFFIN, ARNOLD FORSTER, WILLIAM A. FUSHER, CONGRESSMAN JOHN CONYERS, DR. M. MORAN WESTON 33622 CHICAGO 03/07/81 03/15/81 THE BATTLE FOR SURVIVAL -- THE AMERICAN AUTO INDUSTRY WENDELL H. MILLER, STEPHEN I. SCHOLSSBERG, TOM HANNA, JERRY FLINT, DAVID HEALY 33623 CHICAGO 01/12/81 03/22/81 07/26/81 PART I: POURING OUT YOUR TROUBLES: BARTENDERS TELL ALL PADDY QUINN, CHARLIE SCHOENEMAN, RAY FOLEY, JOHN "SHIRTS" HUGHES, KITTY FITZKE 33615 CHICAGO, DC 03/18/81 03/22/81 07/26/81 PART II: TWINS WHO MARRIED TWINS BARBI GOLDENBERG, D.D.S., BRUCE GOLDENBERG, D.D.S., CHERYL GOLDENBERG, D.D.S., BARRY GOLDENBERG, M.D. 33615 CHICAGO, DC 03/18/81 03/29/81 09/27/81 THE MORAL MAJORITY ON THE WARPATH DR. TIM LA HAYE, DR. DAN C. FORE, SENATOR FRANK CHURCH, DR. DANIEL C. MAGUIRE 33624 CHICAGO, DC 03/28/81 04/05/81 08/16/81 PART I: WOMEN AND SUCCESS -- MAKING IT TO THE TOP JUDY MELLO, ANNE P. HYDE, SUSAN HOROWITZ, PAULA D. HUGHES, JO FOXWORTH 33625 CHICAGO, DC 03/28/81 04/05/81 08/16/81 05/06/84 PART II: THE TRUTH ABOUT SENILITY ROBERT N. BUTLER, M.D., DENNETH L. DAVIS, M.D., DR. PETER DAVIES, DR. ROSE ROBROF 33625 CHICAGO, DC 04/04/81 04/12/81 PART I: BANKS ON THE BRINK MURIEL SIEBERT, LEE GUNDERSON, H. ERICH HEINEMANN, WILLIAM E. DONOGHUE, DR. SAUL B. KLAYMAN 33626 CHICAGO 04/04/81 04/12/81 05/20/84 PART II: DOCTORS' WIVES CARLA FINE, LINDA SHIPLEY, LINDA SEDA, LORI TAYLOR 33626 CHICAGO 4/25/81 04/26/81 THE AMERICAN MILITARY MACHINE: ARE WE READY FOR BATTLE? CONGRESSMAN JIM COURTER, BARRY R. POSEN, BRIGADIER GENERAL ALBION KNIGHT, JR., EDWARD LUTTWAK, GENERAL VOLNEY F. WARNER 33628 CHICAGO, DC 05/02/81 05/10/81 FROM HOLLYWOOD TO BROADWAY - PART I: DUDLEY MOORE 33631 CHICAGO (T), UCLA 05/04/81 05/10/81 FROM HOLLYWOOD TO BROADWAY - PART II: MC CANN AND NUGENT NELLE NUGENT , ELIZABETH MCCANN 33631 CHICAGO (T) 05/09/81 05/17/81 PART I: HOMELESS AND HELPLESS -- PEOPLE WHO LIVE ON THE STREETS ANN MARIE ROUSSEAU, WILLIAM KUEHNE, ANTON GALENOS, SELMA (MARIE) PRICE, SYD ROLFS, VERONICA (VIRGINIA) WILLIAMS, GENE PALMER 33632 CHICAGO, DC 05/04/81 05/17/81 PART II: SPORTS AMERICAN STYLE: BIG, BRUISING BUSINESS DICK SHAAP, PETER BONVENTRE, MIKE LUPICA, DAN JENKINS 33632 CHICAGO, DC 05/09/81 05/24/81 PART I: SURVIVALISTS: PREPARING FOR DOOMSDAY KURT SAXON, JOSEPH RUSTICK, M.D., ROBERT FIRTH, GENE AND PEARL TARMAN 33633 CHICAGO, DC 04/25/81 05/24/81 PART II: DELAYED MOTHERHOOD -- HAVING CHILDREN AT AGE THIRTY FIVE JULIE HOUSTON, LYNN POVICH, JACQUELINE PESUT, LUISA LA VIOLA, DR. PEGGY EWING 33633 CHICAGO, DC 05/18/81 06/07/81 12/09/84 PART I: WITHOUT TEARS -- CHILDREN COPING WITH CANCER CHILDREN: STEPHANIE ROBSON, JIM VOLPE, DOLLY MICONI, CRAIG HETZER, JENNIFER DALSEY MOTHERS: SHARON ROBSON, PEGGY VOLPE, BRITTA HETZER, MARTHA SMENTEK (JENNIFER DALSEY'S MOTHER) 33635 CHICAGO (T), DC 06/06/81 06/07/81 PART II: A VANISHING BREED -- THE PROFESSIONAL VOLUNTEER VIVIAN HARRIS, MARY LINDSAY, JEAN DELAFIELD, ISABELLE STEVENSON, GLORIA W. MILLIKEN 33635 CHICAGO, DC 06/14/81 PART I: THE MAGNIFICENT $20 MILLION YANKEE -- DAVE WINFIELD 33636 CHICAGO, DC 06/14/81 PART II: THE TRUTH ABOUT THE TONY AWARDS ALEXANDER H. COHEN, HILDY PARKS 33636 CHICAGO, DC 05/02/81 06/21/81 PART I: REPORT FROM THREE DOCTORS: THE LATEST IN MEDICINE ISADORE ROSENFELD, M.D., DR. JOHN H. LARAGH, DR. JOSEPH WILDER 33630 CHICAGO, DC 05/18/81 06/21/81 PART II: HOW TO SUE WITHOUT A LAWYER JOHN STRIKER, ANDREW SHAPIRO 33630 CHICAGO, DC 06/13/81 06/28/81 PART I: SHOW BUSINESS COUPLES RENEE TAYLOR, JOSEPH BOLOGNA MARGE REDMOND, JACK WESTON 33634 CHICAGO 05/18/81 06/28/81 PART II: WHO REMEMBERS CARTER -- JOSEPH CALIFANO DOES, THAT'S WHO 33634 CHICAGO THE DAVID SUSSKIND SHOW 1981-82 06/06/81 06/13/81 10/11/81 08/08/82 STARTING OVER AFTER DIVORCE: MIDDLE AGED SINGLES RICHARD SCHICKEL, ANNE PARK, MARTHA HUGHES, STEVEN BRALOVE, RITA MCDOWELL 33637 CHICAGO, DC 06/08/81 10/18/81 08/01/82 PART I: THE REAL CHORUS LINE: BROADWAY DANCERS DONNA DRAKE, BOB HEATH, MARYBETH KURDOCK, DAVID EVANS, RON SCHWINN, JOAN BELL, DEAN BADOLATE, MARYANN NILES 33638 CHICAGO, DC 06/13/81 10/18/81 08/01/82 PART II: FACES IN THE CROWD: MOVIE EXTRAS ROZ BRAVERMAN, ANDREW MURPHY, BARRY WISEMAN, SHANNON SORIN, VELA CERES 33638 CHICAGO, DC 09/30/81 10/25/81 PART I: MAKING MARRIAGE WORK: MARRIAGE COUNSELORS LAURA SINGER, DR. ROBERT RYDER, DR. MEL KRANTZLER, DR. FREDERICK HUMPHREY 35451 CHICAGO, DC 09/30/81 10/25/81 PART II: DIVORCE MEDIATORS DR. JOHN M. HAYNES, LAWRENCE GAUGHAN, SAMUEL MARGULIES, VIRGINIA STAFFORD 35451 CHICAGO, DC 10/24/81 11/01/81 WHAT PLASTIC SURGERY CAN DO FOR YOU DR. RALPH MILLARD, DR. CHRISTOPHER WEATHERLEY-WHITE, DR. BRUCE CONNELL, DR. MICHAEL HOGAN 35452 CHICAGO, DC 10/07/81 11/08/81 07/18/82 06/05/83 PART I: MODELS OVER 50 WHO LOOK GREAT KAYLAN PICKFORD, LILLIAN MARCUSON, CARMEN DELL 'OREFICE 35453 CHICAGO (T), DC 10/28/81 11/08/81 07/18/82 PART II: THE MYSTERY OF SLEEP DR. RICHARD BOOTZIN, DR. QUENTIN REGESTEIN, DR. ELLIOT WEITZMAN 35453 CHICAGO, DC 11/07/81 11/15/81 PART I: MOTHERS WITHOUT CUSTODY ELLEN KIMBALL, "JACKIE", "BARBARA" 35455 CHICAGO, DC 11/07/81 11/15/81 PART II: CAMPUS CONSERVATIVES KEENEY JONES, JOHN GOODWIN, BENNETT COOPER, TERRY QUIST 35455 CHICAGO, DC 11/18/81 11/22/81 PART I: A TALK WITH FATHER THEODORE HESBURGH 34556 CHICAGO 11/18/81 11/22/81 PART II: UPDATE ON THE RADICAL LEFT LEWIS COLE, JOANNE LANDY, JANE ALPERT 34556 CHICAGO 11/21/81 11/29/81 07/04/82 PART I: THE SWINGERS PARADISE OF CLUB MED ROD FRANKEL, DOREEN WOODRUM, SUSAN FRAYTUS, RICKY DETRES, BOB LEIGHTON, CLAUDE KEBBE 35454 CHICAGO, DC 10/28/81 11/29/81 07/04/82 PART II: RETURN TO THE NEST STEPHANIE GANGI, TOM RIPP, FRANK SCHIRALLI, SCOTT MARTONE, ANGELA DIVERGILIO 35454 CHICGO, DC 11/25/81 12/06/81 08/22/82 WOMBS FOR RENT JULIE GALLIMORE, DR. WILLIAM MARRA, NOEL KEANE, DR. PHILLIP PARKER 35458 DC 12/05/81 12/20/81 06/27/82 PART I: DON'T GO NEAR THE WATER! ELEGANT NEW SWIMMER LIZA BRUCE, ANNE COLE, STANLEY REGENBOGAN, FRANK FRIEND, MIRIAM RUZOW 35459 CHICAGO 12/05/81 12/20/81 06/27/82 01/08/84 07/22/84 02/16/86 PART II: ALL ABOUT HANGOVERS DAVID OUTERBRIDGE, NELSON DEMILLE, PETER WALSH, HERBERT GOULD, M.D. 35459 CHICAGO 12/19/81 01/03/82 PART I: AN INTERVIEW WITH GLADYCE BEGELMAN: CO-AUTHOR OF "NEW YORK ON $1,000.00 A DAY" 35457 CHICAGO, DC 12/19/81 01/03/82 08/29/82 04/01/84 PART II: CAN YOU ERASE THOSE WRINKLES? THE TRUTH ABOUT SILICONE AND COLLAGEN DR. LEWIS FEDER, DR. ROBERT AUERBACH, DR. JAMES LEYDEN 35457 CHICAGO, DC 12/05/81 01/20/82 07/25/82 PART I: TOUGHLOVE: PARENTS FIGHT BACK PHYLLIS AND DAVID YORK, LANE PEER, RICHARD SURVING, JEAN BAKER WUNDER 35459 CHICAGO, DC 12/19/81 01/10/82 07/25/82 PART II: ALL ABOUT CATS ANITRA FRAZIER, SIMON BOND, SAMANTHA SUSSKIND, JERRY BENISATTO, PATRICIA NELL WARREN, RICHARD GEBHARDT 35459 CHICAGO, DC 01/13/82 01/17/82 08/15/82 PART I: WEIGHT LOSS NORMA SKOPIN, STEVE SLIVA, GERALDINE O'CONNOR, ANNE MCCARTHY, IRENE CURTIN 35462 CHICAGO, DC 01/13/82 01/17/82 08/15/82 03/25/84 09/16/84 02/09/86 07/06/86 PART II: 'LISA H.' OPERATION LINTON WHITAKER, M.D., JAMES KATOWITZ, M.D., DEREK BRUCE, M.D., CH.B 35462 CHICAGO, DC 01/20/82 01/24/82 "NO, MR. PRESIDENT, WE'RE NOT BETTER OFF" PART I: VICTIMS OF THE BUDGET CUTS MATILDE COLON, ZELDA WEINER, MARY GARBUTT, MURIEL ZGARDOWSKI, MARY GALE 35463 CHICAGO 01/20/82 01/24/82 PART II: FACING PERMANENT LAYOFF DAN SULLIVAN, DOUG FORD, BOB LONGWORTH, BILL AHSCROFT, (RON CARVER-P.R.) 35463 CHICAGO 01/27/82 02/07/82 09/26/82 PART I: BACHELORS OF THE MONTH MICHAEL JEFFREY GRIFFITH, PETER KUHN, O. STEVEN FREDERICKSEN, JIM ZERBE, JOEL DIAMOND 35465 CHICAGO, DC 12/16/81 02/07/82 09/26/82 PART II: CHIROPRACTORS VS. M.D.'S DR. STEPHEN BARRETT, LOUIS SPORTELLI, D.C., CHESTER WILK, D.C., REUBEN HOPPENSTEIN, M.D. 35465 CHICAGO, DC 01/30/82 02/14/82 LOOKING FOR LOVE: A GUIDE FOR SINGLES DR. MARTIN GALLITAN, JOE O'CONNELL, MARCY BOUCHER, GAYLE BOARD, KEN NELSON, MITCHEL MITCHEL 35466 CHICAGO, DC 02/10/82 02/21/82 WHO'S HOT, WHO'S NOT -- WHO'S IN, WHO'S OUT -- THE LATEST GOSSIP MADELLEINE SCHAAP, MAXINE MESSINGER, LIZ SMITH JAMES BRADY, BOB COLACELLO 35467 CHICAGO, DC 02/28/82 PART I: ASTROLOGERS PREDICT WHATS IN THE STARS FOR 1982 MARIA ELISA CRUMMERE, MARTIN SCHULMAN, DARRELL MARTINI, MAE WILSON-LUDLAM 35464 CHICAGO 02/28/82 PART II: SABINA SHALOM 35464 CHICAGO 02/24/82 03/07/82 THE WILD WORLD OF SPORTS DICK SCHAAP, DAN JENKINS, MIKE LUPICA, DAVE ANDERSON, MIKE DOWNEY 35469 CHICAGO 02/27/82 03/07/82 TRAVELING SALESMEN JIM O'CONNOR, JOEL KATZ, JIM PRENDERGAST, DICK ORNSTEIN 35469 CHICAGO 02/13/82 03/14/82 07/11/82 CRIMINALS ARE GETTING AWAY WITH MURDER PHIL SEELIG, BILL CLARK, JUDGE EDWIN TORRES, SEYMOUR WISHMAN 35468 CHICAGO 03/10/82 03/21/82 09/12/82 PART I: ARE WOMEN THEIR OWN WORST ENEMIES? MARY VANN HUNTER, MONIQUE VAN VOOREN, KATHRYN LIVINGSTON, DORIS LILLY 35471 DC 03/13/82 03/21/82 09/12/82 PART II: NICE GIRLS DO DR. IRENE KASSORLA 35471 DC 02/27/82 04/04/82 TROUBLED SKIES: THE AIRLINE MESS WILLIAM HOWARD, DON BURR, MEL BRENNER, MICHAEL ARMELLINO, SECOR BROWNE 35470 CHICAGO, DC 03/24/82 04/04/82 08/29/82 SUPERMOMS COLETTE ROSSANT, KATHRYN DARROW, MEG WHITCOMB, PENNY HAWKEY 35470 CHICAGO, DC 03/13/82 04/11/82 PART I: LIFTING THE BAMBOO CURTAIN: THE URGENT NEED TO UNDERSTAND CHINA DR. JOHN KING FAIRBANK 35472 CHICAGO, DC 03/10/82 04/11/82 PART II: COLLEGE GRADS IN MENIAL JOBS CHAS HICKEY, JANE HANSTEIN, ED CRICHIO, MARK NUNBERG, CAREY HUNTER 35472 CHICAGO (T), DC 04/14/82 04/18/82 PUBLIC SERVICE OR PUBLIC RIP OFF? -- UTILITIES EDWARD LARKIN, EDWARD HYNES, THOMAS FITZPATRICK, KAREN BURSTEIN, CAROL BARGER, ALFRED NARDELLI 35473 CHICAGO 04/25/82 ON THE VERGE OF RUIN: AMERICA'S DESPERATE FARMERS NITA GIBSON, WAYNE CRYTS, JOHN STULP, PETER CURRA, VAREL BAILEY 35476 CHICAGO, DC 04/24/82 05/02/82 COUNTDOWN TO DOOMSDAY: THE NUCLEAR ARMS DEBATE ADMIRAL ELMO ZUMWALT, DR. DANIEL MAGUIRE, DR. SCOTT THOMPSON, JACK GEIGER, M.D. FRITZ ERMARTH, CONGRESSMAN THOMAS DOWNEY 35477 CHICAGO, DC 03/24/82 05/09/82 PART I: FAST AND FUNNY: COLLEGE DEBATERS DAVID BAILIN, HARRY WALTERS, LARRY EICHENFIELD, EDWARD O'TOOLE, DAVID KIDD, J.J. GERTLER, GRANT OLIPHANT, RICHARD SOMMER 35473 CHICAGO, DC 05/08/82 05/16/82 GOOD NEWS AND BAD NEWS ABOUT THE ECONOMY DR. WILLIAM NISKANEN, JR., LEONARD SILK, DR. OTTO ECKSTEIN, DR. ALAN GREENSPAN, DR. JOSEPH PECHMAN 35479 CHICAGO (T) 05/05/82 05/23/82 10/03/82 "I'M ON WELFARE AND I HATE IT" -- A WELFARE MOTHER SHARON HUNT 35478 CHICAGO, DC 05/19/82 05/30/82 PART I: NOT FOR MEN ONLY -- BLUE COLLAR WOMEN TINA NANNARONE, LAURA SCHWARTZ, JANE KELLEY, SHARON HOLMES, JUDY HUGHES 35480 CHICAGO, DC 05/19/82 05/30/82 PART II: OUT OF CASH? TRY BARTER ANNIE PROULX, JERRY WEINER, GENE HOLTZMAN, CONNIE STAPLETON 35480 CHICAGO, DC 05/22/82 06/06/82 09/19/82 AN INTERVIEW WITH THE REMARKABLE VIDAL SASSOON VIDAL SASSOON 35481 CHICAGO, DC 06/13/82 WHO CAN AFFORD COLLEGE ANYMORE? -- PART I: ADMINISTRATORS JAMES POWELL, STEPHEN TRACHTENBERG, WILLIAM MAXWELL, HARVEY GROTRAIN 35482 CHICAGO 06/13/82 WHO CAN AFFORD COLLEGE ANYMORE? -- PART 2: PARENTS JOSEPH ZULLO, JOHN KAUFMAN, FREDERIC KRAMER, GLORIA GATTI, ALEXANDRA GREELEY 35482 CHICAGO 06/20/82 NO MORE LAND OF PLENTY NORMAN BERG, KREKEL KARCH, NEIL SAMPSON 35484 CHICAGO 06/20/82 CAREER COUNSELORS JOHN CRYSTAL, STANLEY HYMAN, ROBERT SWAIN, IRENE ANSHER 35484 CHICAGO THE DAVID SUSSKIND SHOW 1982-83 10/06/82 10/10/82 THE DAVID SUSSKIND SHOW -- 25TH ANNIVERSARY SPECIAL - PART I 35486 CHICAGO, DC 10/09/82 10/17/82 THE DAVID SUSSKIND SHOW -- 25TH ANNIVERSARY SPECIAL - PART II MAUREEN STAPLETON, ANTHONY QUINN, NORMAN MAILER, TRUMAN CAPOTE 37027 CHICAGO (T), UCLA, DC 07/16/82 10/24/82 08/28/83 TOP TRIAL LAWYERS DEMONSTRATE THE ART OF JURY SELECTION PHILIP CORBOY, HAROLD PRICE FAHRINGER, AARON BRODER, BILL COLSON 35483 CHICAGO, DC 04/17/82 10/31/82 07/17/83 PART I: COCAINE: A 30 BILLION DOLLAR EPIDEMIC ROBERT MILLMAN, M.D., ANDY KOWL, TOM HENDERSON, "AMY", "A.J.", "LIZA" 35475 CHICAGO, DC 04/17/82 10/31/82 07/17/83 02/03/85 11/17/85 PART II: PARTY CRASHERS GARY WATSON, STEVE GOLDSTEIN, FRANK FUSARO, MIKE BURKE 35475 CHICAGO (T), DC 10/30/82 11/07/82 HERPES: THE VENEREAL DISEASE THAT CAN'T BE CURED PART 1: VICTIMS: OSCAR GILLESPIE, PHD., JANE RUBINSKY , RUSSELL WOOD, "SCOTT" PART II: DOCTORS: ANDRE NAHMIAS, M.D., HERBERT BLOUGH, M.D., JOHN GROSSMAN, M.D., DR. CARLOS LOPEZ 37028 CHICAGO (T), DC 11/03/82 11/14/82 08/21/83 PART I: WHY DON'T PEOPLE DATE ANYMORE? DOUG FOSTER, DOUG BERNSTEIN, SERENA BLISS, MICHAEL SELBY, LIZ CASTELLS, MAGGIE PETERS, SIGNE WARNER, BOB POLLAK 37029 CHICAGO (T) 11/03/82 11/14/82 08/21/83 PART II: AN INTERVIEW WITH HAMILTON JORDAN HAMILTON JORDAN 37029 CHICAGO 11/06/82 11/21/82 01/26/86 05/25/86 08/17/86 PART I: DOLLAR A DANCE -- TAXI DANCERS ARIEL LUCAS, PAUL PRICKETT, PENNY PRUCHA, ELLEN STOKES, CAROL SUNDQUIST 37030 CHICAGO 11/06/82 11/21/82 03/18/84 PART II: THE MYSTERY OF THE FULL MOON ARNOLD L. LEIBER, M.D., CHARLES S. MIRABILE, M.D., DR. RALPH W. MORRIS, DR. DONALD P. LASALLE 37030 CHICAGO (T) 11/20/82 11/28/82 CONGRESSMEN WHO WERE DEFEATED DON CLAUSEN, GENE ATKINSON, TOBY MOFFETT, JOHN LEBOUTILLIER 37031 CHICAGO (T) 11/20/82 12/05/82 02/17/85 PART I: HOW TO MARRY A RICH MAN JACQUELINE THOMPSON, RITA LACHMAN, DIANE ACKERMAN 37032 CHICAGO 06/19/82 12/05/82 PART II: LONG DISTANCE MARRIAGE BRYNA SANGER, HARRY KATZ, KAREN AKERS, CATHERINE AND JIM FOSTER 37032 CHICAGO (T) 11/27/82 12/12/82 07/10/83 PART I: GROWING UP IN THE DEPRESSION WITH RUSSELL BAKER, ANNE JACKSON, ELI WALLACH AND ED KOCH 37035 CHICAGO (T) 11/20/82 12/12/82 07/10/83 01/20/85 01/19/86 PART II: THE EFFECT OF COLOR ON OUR LIVES JOHN OTT, DR. JAMES D'ADAMO, IRENE AUSTIN 37035 CHICAGO (T) 12/08/82 12/19/82 06/26/83 PART I: CHOCOLATE TOM KRON, LAURA BRODY, MILTON ZELMAN, AL PECHENIK, RUDOLF SPRUNGLI 37036 CHICAGO (T) 12/08/82 12/19/82 06/26/83 PART II: ENTERTAINING CHARLOTTE TREE, SANDRA KASPER, MARY MCFADDEN, GEORGE LANG 37036 CHICAGO 11/27/82 12/26/82 07/24/83 PART I: TV ANCHORWOMEN ROBIN YOUNG, MONICA KAUFMAN, SUE SIMMONS, PAT HARPER 37034 CHICAGO (T) 12/11/82 12/26/82 07/24/83 PART II: AMBASSADOR MALCOLM TOON 37034 12/11/82 01/02/83 10/16/83 07/29/84 02/16/86 07/13/86 PAR I: SELF DEFENSE FOR WOMEN: HOW TO FIGHT BACK DR. MARY CONROY 37039 CHICAGO 12/11/82 01/02/83 PART II: THE CAREER WOMAN'S DILEMMA: JOB VS. BABIES CAROL MASIUS, ANDREA DUNHAM, NANCY EVANS, MARIA CAMPBELL, SERINE HASTINGS 37039 CHICAGO (T) 12/18/82 01/09/83 HOW TO LIVE WITH ARTHRITIS PART I: PATIENTS DR. ROBERT GOULD, BOB NIRKIND, ROBIN MAY, JOHN MURPHY, MARTHA SCHORTTMAN PART II: DOCTORS GERALD WEISSMAN, M.D. FREDERIC MCDUFFIE, M.D., GEORGE EHRLICH, M.D., THOMAS KANTOR, M.D. 37038 CHICAGO (T) 01/05/83 01/16/83 PART I: WOMEN OF THE YEAR: BROADWAY'S LEADING LADIES ELIZABETH ASHLEY, ELLEN BURSTYN, JUDITH IVEY, BETTY BUCKLEY 37040 CHICAGO (T) 01/05/83 01/16/83 PART II: BANKS ON THE BRINK: THE FOREIGN LOAN MESS C.W. CARSON, JR., RICHARD ERB, JOHN G. HEIMAN, PETER KENEN, REP. CHARLES E. SCHUMER 37040 CHICAGO 01/15/83 01/23/83 PART I: WAITRESSES DEBORAH GRISORIO, KATHLEEN MCLANE, PAULA MURRAY, NANCY YOUNGBLUT 37041 CHICAGO (T) 01/15/83 01/23/83 PAR II: NUCLEAR DETERRENCE IN ROME, NY EDWARD BURTON, ED CALLAHAN, COL. JOHN ENGELMANN, EMLYN GRIFFITH, IRWIN REDLENER 37041 CHICAGO 01/27/83 01/30/83 PART I: IS THIS BULL MARKET FOR REAL? STEVEN EINHORN, ELIOT FRIED, JOHN HINDELONG, THOMAS STILES, JOHN TEMPLETON 37044 CHICAGO 01/19/83 01/30/83 12/11/83 PART II: COOKIES ARE BIG BUSINESS DAVID LIEDERMAN, BARBARA KAFKA, MARNI MILLER, JAN VERDONKSCHOT 37044 CHICAGO 01/22/83 02/06/83 THE RICH AND FAMOUS -- THE LATEST GOSSIP LIZ SMITH, DIANA MCLELLEN, TAKE AND MAXINE MESINGER 37043 CHICAGO 02/02/83 02/13/83 AMERICAN WOMEN WHO MARRY FOREIGN MEN JANA JAFFEE, KATHRYN JASON, SHARON COSTA DE BEAUREGARD, COUNTESS DE ROMANONES, MARTHA BURKE-HENNESSY 37045 CHICAGO 02/02/83 02/13/83 DOWNWARD MOBILITY -- THE END OF THE AMERICAN DREAM BOB SACCO, DAN RASUMSSEN, RHONA DROSSMAN, LLOYD SAVEL, HOPE POKRESS 37045 CHICAGO (T) 02/16/83 02/20/83 WHAT'S IN THE STARS FOR 1983 ASTROLOGERS POPE HILL, PATRIC WALKER, MARIA CRUMMERE, DEBBI KEMPTON-SMITH, JOELLE MAHONEY 37046 CHICAGO 02/16/83 02/27/83 12/02/84 05/04/86 PART I: STOPPING THE CLOCK? GEROVITAL EMILY WILKINS, BILL TICE, DORIS WHITEHEAD, JOHN COFFMAN, BARRY REISBERG, M.D. 37042 CHICAGO (T) 01/19/83 02/27/83 THE MYSTERY OF THE COMMON COLD STEVEN MOSTOW, M.D., R. GORDON DOUGLAS, M.D., SANFORD CHODOSH, M.D., HYLAN BICKERMAN, M.D., JOHN ABELES, M.D. 37042 CHICAGO 02/23/83 03/06/83 PART I: ANGRY CRIME VICTIMS DIANI MONTENEGRO, SHIRLEY BERNSTEIN, GUILIA PAGANO, ROBERT GRAYSON, DR. MICHAEL ROBINSON 37047 CHICAGO (T) 02/23/83 03/06/83 PART II: CRIME FIGHTERS SGT. JOSEPH DUNNE, DET. BILL CLARK, DET./LT. ROBERT GALLAGHER 37047 CHICAGO 03/05/83 03/13/83 FILM CRITICS PREDICT THE OSCARS DAVID DENBY, JANET MASLIN, REX REED, HOWARD KISSEL, STEWART KLEIN 37048 CHICAGO (T) 03/09/83 03/20/83 06/10/84 PART I: PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES JAMES IRVIN GLOVER, GRADY O'CUMMINGS III, LESTER BYERLEY, GERARD HIMMELMAN 37049 CHICAGO 03/09/83 03/20/83 06/10/84 PART II: IS PSYCHIATRY IN TROUBLE? STEPHEN SONNENBERG, M.D., LAYTON MCCURDY, M.D., ALLEN FRANCES, M.D., STUART YUDOFSKY, M.D. 37049 CHICAGO (T) 03/19/83 03/27/83 06/24/84 PART I: SEMINARY AND CONVENT DROP-OUTS CATHERINE BRUNO, PAUL HENDRICKSON, THOMAS SMITH, MARY GILLIGAN WONG, CHARLES DEVLIN 37050 CHICAGO (T) 03/19/83 03/27/83 PART II: MID-LIFE VOCATIONS SARAH B. TAYLOR, THOMAS H. GAINER, JR., REV. FRANK KILCOYNE, REV. JAMES F. HINCHEY, REV. FRANCIS J. FAJELLA, MSS.A 37050 CHICAGO 03/23/83 04/03/83 10/02/83 A CONVERSATION WITH ROBERT S. STRAUSS 37051 CHICAGO (T) 04/06/83 04/10/83 09/18/83 DEAR ANN LANDERS... ANN LANDERS 37052 CHICAGO 04/06/83 04/10/83 09/18/83 PART II: THE NEW YOUNG IMMIGRANTS CHRISTINA WACHTMEISTER, WILLIAM LEWIISHAM, ASHA PUTHLI, GIANNINA FACIO, FELIPTE PARAUD 37052 CHICAGO 04/13/83 04/17/83 09/25/83 S.R.O. HOTELS NAYNA VALDEZ, JOSEPH HOFFLER, LLOYD SMITH, ISMAEL RIVERA, ROBERT HAMBURGER, ALFRED GUNTHER, "ALICE" 37053 CHICAGO (T) 04/14/83 04/24/83 11/20/83 PART I: ANTHONY BURGESS 37054 CHICAGO (T) 04/23/83 04/24/83 06/08/86 PART II: BARBARA CARTLAND 37054 CHICAGO (T) 04/23/83 05/01/83 PART I: MEN WHO WANT TO MARRY RICH JEAN MORBELLI, DARIUS DE LA ROUCHEFOUCAULD, PATRICK KELLY, ROWEN NEGRIN 37055 CHICAGO (T) 04/23/83 05/01/83 03/11/84 08/05/84 04/13/86 06/22/86 08/24/86 PART II: BEST PLACES TO LIVE DAVID SAVAGEAU, RICHARD BOYER, DR. RONALD MINGE, DR. THOMAS BOWMAN 37055 CHICAGO 04/27/83 05/08/83 05/13/84 10/14/84 WE USED TO BE GAY - FORMER HOMOSEXUALS WILLIAM ATHERTON, DAVID TWOMEY, REV. WAYNE PLUMSTEAD, BRUCE BLAUSTEIN, JOSEPH MEGLINO 37056 CHICAGO (T) 04/27/83 05/08/83 BURN OUT - HOW TO RECOGNIZE AND DEAL WITH IT MICHAEL CRAWFORD, DR. HERBERT FREUDENBERGER, GAIL NORTH, CONNIE DE NAVE, SYLVESTER KARAGIS 37056 CHICAGO 04/30/83 05/15/83 10/09/83 BASEBALL WIVES DANIELLE TORRES, NANCY MARSHALL, BOBBIE BOUTON, KAROLYN ROSE, DIANE PEPITONE 37057 CHICAGO 05/07/83 05/22/83 08/07/83 PART I: LONLINESS JANE ADAMS, JOAN GOULD, JOHN HOLLANDER, MURRAY KELLMAN, MAURA SWANSON 37058 CHICAGO 05/07/83 05/22/83 08/07/83 PART II: PEOPLE MAD AT THE BANKS ALISON ROSENFELD, RON BANYAY, PAGE MELLISH, CALVET HAHN, GAYLE ESSAREY 37058 CHICAGO 05/25/83 05/29/83 07/31/83 01/27/85 BALLET - THE WORLD'S TOUGHEST SPORT CHRISTINE SPIZZO, MERRILL ASHLEY, CHRISTOPHER D'AMBOISE, KEVIN MCKENSIE 37060 CHICAGO (T) 05/25/83 05/29/83 07/31/83 02/12/84 12/22/85 06/15/86 THE LATEST WORD ON FOOTCARE JAMES PARKES, M.D., A. LOUIS SHURE, D.P.M., JOHN WALLER, M.D., MURRAY WEISENFELD, D.P.M. 37060 CHICAGO (T) 05/21/83 06/05/83 DAVID SUSSKIND AND FRIENDS JEAN KENNEDY, DAN BERKOWITZ, SAMANTHA SUSSKIND 37059 CHICAGO (T) 06/08/83 06/11/83 08/14/83 DR. CHARLES CLEMENTS, AN AMERICAN DOCTOR IN EL SALVADOR 37061 CHICAGO (T) 06/11/83 06/19/83 09/11/83 MOTHERS AND DAUGHTERS DEANE W. LORD, MARY CAMERON LORD, LOIS WYSE, KATHERINE GOLDMAN 37062 CHICAGO (T) 06/11/83 06/19/83 09/11/83 PEOPLE WHO HAVE MOVED TO NEW YORK RAYNE BEAUDOIN, BONNIE KOLOC, KEVIN METHENY, MARY SUE MORRIS, KIM STEELE 37062 THE DAVID SUSSKIND SHOW 1983-1984 06/22/83 10/16/83 PART I: WHY CAN'T MEN SHOW AFFECTION?: MALE FRIENDSHIP RICHARD SCHICKEL, HERBERT GOULD, LARRY LEEDS, DAVID MICHEALIS 37063 CHICAGO (T) 10/17/83 10/23/83 07/15/84 A CONVERSATION WITH ANTHONY QUINN 37066 CHICAGO (T) 10/25/83 10/30/83 A MODERN MARK TWAIN: MAYOR ALFRED E. VELLUCCI OF CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 37068 CHICAGO (T) 10/15/83 11/06/83 FRIENDSHIP AMONG WOMEN JOANNA SIMON, CATHY CASH SPELLMAN, DEANE LORD, ALICE WHITE 37065 CHICAGO (T) 10/17/83 11/20/83 PART I: ANTHONY QUINN CONTINUED 37067 CHICAGO 11/23/83 11/27/83 PART I: HELEN GALLAGHER 37072 CHICAGO (T) 11/19/83 11/27/83 PART II: THE MAKING OF CARMEN PETER BROOK, ALEXANDER COHEN, HILDY PARKS 37072 CHICAGO 11/19/83 12/04/83 09/30/84 A PROBING LOOK AT THE RUSSIANS HEDRICK SMITH, DAVID SHIPLER 37071 CHICAGO (T) 11/23/83 12/11/83 07/29/84 PART I: BROADWAY AND HOLLYWOOD LAID BARE MILTON GOLDMAN, ANNA SOSENKO, RADIE HARRIS 37073 CHICAGO 12/10/83 12/18/83 09/09/84 PART I: RESTAURANTEURS SHELDON TANNEN, LELLO ARPAIA, SIRIO MACCIONI, ROBERT MEYZEN, GIANNI GARAVELLI 37069 CHICAGO (T) 10/29/83 12/18/83 09/09/84 PART II: PHOTOGRAPHER NORMAN PARKINSON 37069 CHICAGO (T) 12/17/83 12/25/83 PART I: CARD SHARK FRANK GARCIA 37077 CHICAGO (T) 12/17/83 12/25/83 PART II: SPECTACULAR EVENING GOWNS BY JANA JANA JAFFE DE ROSSELL 37077 CHICAGO (T) 11/30/83 01/01/84 PART I: BETTER THAN EVER: SHOW BUSINESS GREATS JOYCE BRYANT, SHERRY BRITTON 37075 CHICAGO 10/29/83 01/01/84 PART II: NOUVEAU IS BETTER THAN NO RICHE AT ALL MARYLIN BENDER, MONSIEUR MARC 37069 12/10/83 01/08/84 07/22/84 PART I: THE LATEST BREAKTHROUGHS IN THE TREATMENT OF HEART DISEASE MICHAEL DE BAKEY, M.D., ISADORE ROSENFELD, M.D. 37074 CHICAGO (T) 12/14/83 01/15/84 DO WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO KILL OURSELVES? VALERIA, DEREK HUMPHRY, DR. WILLIAM MARRA, PROFESSOR MARVIN KOHL, PROFESSOR DAVID BLEICH, DORIS PORTWOOD 37076 CHICAGO 01/11/84 01/22/84 08/19/84 WARNING: MEDICAL CARE MAY BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR WEALTH SENATOR LOWELL WEICKER, MARTIN CHERKASKY, M.D., JOHN LARAGH, M.D. 40029 CHICAGO (T) 01/21/84 01/29/84 NEW YORK: A WONDERFUL TOWN MAYOR EDWARD KOCH, LEWIS RUDIN, ANTHONY BLISS 40030 (NY TV MUSEUM) 01/25/84 01/29/84 PART II: "NO NICE GIRL SWEARS" - ALICE-LEONE MOATS 40030 CHICAGO(T) 02/04/84 02/12/84 PART I: FORGET THE FEAR OF FLYING CAPTAIN T.W. CUMMINGS, ANNA GILHULEY, BETSY BYRNE, CAROL LAWSON, FRANK SINK 40033 CHICAGO (T) 02/08/84 02/19/84 WHO'S IN, WHO'S OUT - WHO'S HOT, WHO'S NOT: THE LATEST GOSSIP LIZ SMITH, MAXINE MESINGER, TAKI, SHIRLEY EDER 40034 CHICAGO (T) 02/22/84 03/04/84 FORMER CONGRESSMEN GIVE THE LOWDOWN ON POLITICS 40035 01/25/84 03/11/84 08/05/84 PART I: THE MAN WHO SAVED NEW YORK: FELIX ROHATYN 40032 CHICAGO (T) 01/21/84 03/18/84 PART I: FORECASTING THE FUTURE WITH "RUNES" RALPH BLUM, BRONWYN JONES, DR. ROBERT LORENZ 40031 CHICAGO (T) 03/03/84 03/25/84 09/16/84 PART I: CANCER PATIENT VOLUNTEERS KATHRYN STEIN, GERRY GEORGE, ALAN MATCOVSKY 40036 CHICAGO (T) 03/03/84 04/01/84 PART I: CLASS: WHAT IS IT? WHO HAS IT? BENITA EISLER, PAUL FUSSELL, TERRY NOEL TOWE 40038 CHICAGO 03/21/84 04/08/84 08/12/84 PART I: BIG TIME SPORTS ARE NOT FOR MEN ONLY DONNA DEVARONA, KATHERINE SWITZER, GINNY SEIPT, PATRICIA HALL 40037 CHICAGO (T) 03/24/84 04/08/84 08/12/84 PART II: "THE ULTIMATE SEDUCTION": AN INTERVIEW WITH CHARLOTTE CHANDLER 40037 CHICAGO 03/31/84 04/15/84 TOUGH JUDGES TALK ABOUT CRIME AND PUNISHMENT JUDGE BURTON ROBERTS, JUDGE HERBERT STERN 40039 CHICAGO (T) 04/16/84 04/22/84 PART I: EVERYTHING'S UP TO DATE IN KANSAS CITY MAYOR RICHARD L. BERKLEY, SANDRA DAY BERKLEY, ELLIS G. BRADLEY, BEVERLY BRADLEY, J.C. NICHOLS, JR., MARY NICHOLS 40043 CHICAGO (T) 04/16/84 04/22/84 PART II: AN INTERVIEW WITH SIR JAMES MURRAY 40043 04/09/84 04/29/84 09/16/84 AN INTERVIEW WITH A. BARTLETT GIAMATTI, PRESIDENT OF YALE UNIVERSITY 40042 CHICAGO (T) 03/31/84 05/06/84 PART I: YES, MR. MEESE, THERE ARE HUNGRY PEOPLE TOBEY BERMUDEZ, MAGDA MARTIS, AUDREY MINNS, ERNESTINE ROYSTER, FRANK MONTGOMERY, CHARLES TAVENNER, NICK, MORRIS HACKNEY 40040 CHICAGO (T) 03/24/84 05/13/84 10/14/84 PART I: REAL LIFE TOOTSIES: MEN WHO DRESS AS WOMEN ARIADNE KANE, NAOMI, EILEEN, CHERYL 40041 CHICAGO (T) 04/28/84 05/20/84 PART I: SEX IS THEIR BUSINESS DR. IRENE KASSORLA, SHIRLEY LORD, DR. LONNIE BARBACHN 40045 CHICAGO 05/09/84 05/27/84 10/07/84 BRILLIANT MINDS, BRILLIANT CONVERSATION ARTHUR SCHLESINGER, JOHN SIMON, BERNARD LEVIN 40047 CHICAGO (T) 04/25/84 06/03/84 08/26/84 VIETNAM: THE NIGHTMARE NEVER ENDS JOHN CATTERSON, THOMAS LECKINGER, THOMAS BRINSON, LAWRENCE SMITH 40044 CHICAGO 05/23/84 06/17/84 10/28/84 PART I: WOMEN BEHIND BARS - FEMALE EX-CONS FRAN O'LEARY, CONNIE FLYNN, BARBARA JORDAN, ANN MARIE DELONE 40050 CHICAGO (T) 06/12/84 06/17/84 10/28/84 PART II: ALL ABOUT ICE CREAM JOHN R. LESAUVAGE, REUBEN MATTUS, NANCY ARUM, CAROL T. ROBBINS 40050 CHICAGO (T) 06/12/84 06/24/84 A CONVERSATION WITH ROSALYNN CARTER 40052 CHICAGO (T) 06/04/84 07/01/84 PART I: BIG BUSINESSMEN TALK ABOUT EAST-WEST TRADE AND THE CORPORATE IMAGE DWAYNE ANDREAS, DONALD KENDALL 40051 CHICAGO (T) 05/23/84 07/01/84 06/01/86 PART II: OLDER WOMEN FIGHT AGE DISCRIMINATION JEAN PHILLIPS, BETTY ROSEN, DR. JANE PORCINO, SHIRLEY KARNES 40049 CHICAGO (T) 11/16/83 07/08/84 THE POPE OF MODERN ADVERTISING - DAVID OGILVY 37070 CHICAGO (T) THE DAVID SUSSKIND SHOW 1984-1985 10/20/84 11/04/84 STRICTLY PERSONAL: MEETING AND MATING THROUGH THE PERSONAL ADS ANNE ROSEN, HY FINKELMAN, RICHARD KATZ, RITA HALLEY, LOU SPIER, JOAN LERNER, DON FEAREY, URSULA GARRISS 40054 CHICAGO 05/16/84 11/11/84 TOP DIVORCE LAWYERS A. ROBERT ZEFF, WILLIAM G. MULLIGAN, JULIA PERLES, MARVIN MITCHELSON, ROY COHN 40048 CHICAGO (T) 04/28/84 11/18/84 PART I: GLAMOROUS MODELS FROM THE 50s DORIAN LEIGH, NANCY BERG, DOVIMA, CARMEN 40046 CHICAGO (T) 10/13/84 11/18/84 PART II: RISING STARS OF THE 80s CINDY WAITE, VICTORIA PROUTY, CAROL ALT, SAMANTHA PHILLIPS, CARRIE MILLER 40046 CHICAGO 10/27/84 11/25/84 IS THE SEXUAL REVOLUTION OVER? THE RETURN TO CHASTITY SUE ATCHESON, BOB POLLAK, ROBERT MASELLO, SARA NELSON, PAT SKIPPER 40055 CHICAGO (T) 10/27/84 11/25/84 PART II: EXPERTS DR. JUDITH KURIANSKY, DR. CAROL FLAX, ARTHUR KORNHABER, M.D. 40055 10/31/84 12/02/84 PART I: THE MALE MID-LIFE CRISIS: AN INTERVIEW WITH WILLIAM A. NOLEN, M.D. 41000 CHICAGO (T) 11/10/84 01/05/86 04/06/86 AN INTERVIEW WITH HAROLD GENEEN - AUTHOR OF "MANAGING" 41001 CHICAGO 11/10/84 12/09/84 10/27/85 PART I: CHILDREN OF WAR RONNY AL-ROY, DANNY KUTTAB, MAO PANHA, ANNA MARIA LOPEZ, ARN CHORN 41002 CHICAGO (T) 11/28/84 12/16/84 PART I: BOXERS' WIVES TELL ALL VIKKI LA MOTTA, REBA SMITH, JANE COSTELLO, EDNA MAE ROBINSON 41004 CHICAGO (T) 11/28/84 12/16/84 01/12/86 04/27/86 PART II: HOW TO MEASURE LOVE - AN INTERVIEW WITH DR. ROBERT STERNBERG 41004 CHICAGO (T) 10/31/84 12/23/84 PART I: "TAKE MY WIFE, PLEASE": AN INTERVIEW WITH HENNY YOUNGMAN 40053 CHICAGO (T) 10/13/84 12/23/84 PART II: AN INTERVIEW WITH ARTIE SHAW 40053 CHICAGO (T) 11/13/84 01/06/85 02/02/86 PART I: THE EXERCISE MYTH HENRY SOLOMON, M.D., RALPH ORISCELLO, M.D., GEORGE SHEEHAN, M.D., RICHARD STEIN, M.D. 41003 CHICAGO (T) 11/13/84 01/06/85 11/10/85 02/02/86 08/03/86 PART II: THE NEW OFFICE ETIQUETTE MARJABELLE YOUNG STEWART, LETITIA BALDRIGE, GEORGE MAZZEI 40113 CHICAGO 12/01/84 01/13/85 THE TRAGEDY OF ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE PART I: CHILDREN AND SPOUSES BERNARD NATHANSON, MILLIE SEIDEN, MARION ROACH, LONNIE WOLLIN, MARILYN HERMAN PART II: DOCTORS MIRIAM K. ARONSON, M.D., ROBERT N. BUTLER, M.D., KENNETH L. DAVIS, M.D., JOHN P. BLASS, M.D., PHD. 41005 CHICAGO 01/12/85 01/20/85 TOP ASTROLOGERS PREDICT WHAT'S IN STORE FOR 1985 POPE HILL, JOELLE K.D. MAHONEY, NAN HALL LINKE, MARY ORSER, HENRY WEINGARTEN 41009 CHICAGO (T) 12/19/84 03/02/86 07/20/86 BIG-TIME DRUG SMUGGLERS "RICHARD DICKMAN", TOM KIMBALL, WAYNE GREENHAW 41006 CHICAGO (T) 12/19/84 01/27/85 05/18/86 07/27/86 GET RID OF YOUR FAT - SUCTION LIPECTOMY NORMAN HUGO, M.D., DICRAN GOULIAN, JR., M.D., EUGENE CURTIS 41007 CHICAGO (T) 12/22/84 02/03/85 11/17/85 PART I: SEX FOR SALE - MALE PROSTITUTES JOE, ANTHONY, BILL, PATRICK, ANTONIO 41008 CHICAGO (T) 01/12/85 02/17/85 PART I: YOLANA - A PSYCHIC DEMONSTRATION 41010 CHICAGO (T) 01/15/85 02/24/85 SOME PEOPLE STAY MARRIED LARRY AND NORMAN STORCH, JOEY AND CINDY ADAMS, DAN AND JUNE JENKINS 41011 CHICAGO THE DAVID SUSSKIND SHOW 1985-1986 09/24/85 10/20/85 06/29/86 THE MARILYN MONROE STORY - AN INTERVIEW WITH AUTHOR ANTHONY SUMMERS 41034 CHICAGO (T) 05/11/85 10/27/85 PART I: HOW TO GET YOUR TEENAGERS OFF DRUGS JOHN WHITE, LOIS WHITE, BRIAN MAZZIA, JOHN MAZZIA, ANN, ROBERT 41028 CHICAGO (T) 10/22/85 11/03/85 EVERYTHING YOU EVER WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT PORNO MOVIES SAMANTHA FOX, CANDIDA ROYALLE, JACK WRANGLER, MARC STEVENS, GLORIA LEONARD 41036 CHICAGO (T) 10/17/85 11/10/85 08/03/86 PART I: OUR CHILDREN ARE HOMOSEXUALS AMY ASHWORTH, BOB BENOV, "ARTHUR", "GLORIA", "JOE" 41035 CHICAGO (T) 11/06/85 11/24/85 THE FIRST AMENDMENT COMEDY TROUPE BARBARA CONTARDI, PAT BAILY, JANE BRUCKER, NANCY LOMBARDO, BILL MCLAUGHLIN, JOE PERCE, MICHAEL SHAFFER, ELLEN MANDEL, STEPHEN PATTERSON 41038 CHICAGO (T) 10/29/85 12/01/85 04/20/86 09/07/86 HOW YOU CAN PREVENT ALMOST EVERY DISEASE ISADORE ROSENFELD, M.D. 41037 CHICAGO 12/03/85 12/08/85 PART I: THE LAST TABOO - OLDER WOMEN AND YOUNGER MEN BOB MERRILL, JUDY CARNE, CHRISTOPHER KADISON, ROSEMARY ROGERS, JACK WRANGLER, MARGARET WHITING 41040 CHICAGO (T) 12/10/85 12/15/85 PART I: HAVE YOU EVER LIVED BEFORE - REINCARNATION JUNE WHITAKER, CAREY WILLIAMS, ALAN VAUGHAN, SHALA MATTINGLY, PROF. HANS HOLZER 41041 CHICAGO (T) 04/17/85 12/15/85 PART II: DETAILS ON AVENUE MAGAZINE - UPTOWN AND DOWNTOWN JUDITH PRICE, MICHAEL SHNAYERSON, ANNIE FLANDERS, STEPHEN SABAN, BEAUREGARD HOUSTON-MONTGOMERY 41041 12/19/85 12/22/85 PART I: CREATORS OF THE HOTTEST NEW DIETS BARBARA EDELSTEIN, M.D., STUART M. BERGER, M.D., SYBIL FERGUSON, LAURA STEIN 41044 CHICAGO (T) 10/20/85 01/05/86 PART I: TAIWAN - THE OTHER CHINA JOSEPHINE WANG, DOUGLAS TONG HSU, LIN YU-HSIANG, DR. WEI YUNG, DR. WU JING-JYI 41045 CHICAGO (T) 12/14/85 01/12/86 PART I: MARRIED WOMEN - EXTRAMARITAL LIASONS "MARILYN", "JEAN" 41042 CHICAGO (T) 01/11/86 01/19/86 PART I: ASTROLOGY - WHAT THE STARS SAY ABOUT 1986 POPE HILL, MARY ORSER, JOELLE K.D. MAHONEY, DEMO DI MARTILE, DIANE WEBB 41046 CHICAGO 12/14/85 01/26/86 08/17/86 PART I: STRAIGHT PEOPLE ARE AFRAID OF AIDS, TOO SYDNEY ANDERSON, ELAYNE KAHN, TOM DOE-BARE, URSULS GARRISS, GARY NULL 41043 CHICAGO (T) 01/25/86 02/09/86 07/06/86 PART I: MY SON COMMITTED SUICIDE SUSAN WHITE-BOWDEN 41049 CHICAGO (T) 01/16/86 02/16/86 PART I: THE BATTLE AGAINST SMOKING BOB GREENE, EVA BRENT, JOHN BANZHAF, FRAN LEE 41048 CHICAGO (T) 02/04/86 02/23/86 07/13/86 PART I: THE WAR AGAINST THE MAFIA EDWARD MCDONALD, NICHOLAS PILEGGI, BOB LUCCI, RONALD GOLDSTOCK, TOM SHEER 41991 CHICAGO (T) 02/04/86 03/02/86 07/20/86 PART II: THE WAR AGAINST THE MAFIA EDWARD MCDONALD, NICHOLAS PILEGGI, BOB LUCCI, RONALD GOLDSTOCK, TOM SHEER 41992 CHICAGO 02/06/86 03/09/86 SHOULD YOU HAVE A FACE LIFT? LET THE COMPUTER TELL YOU ROO BROWN, DORIS WHITEHEAD, FRANK OLIVE, CHICKEE JAMES, ELLIOT JACOBS, M.D. 41993 CHICAGO (T) 05/01/85 03/09/86 PART II: TRENDY RESTAURANTS ELAINE KAUFMAN, HOWARD STEIN, JIM MCMULLEN, BRIAN MCNULTY 41993 02/09/85 03/16/86 08/10/86 PART I: THE JOY OF ITALIAN FOOD LAURA MAIOGLIO, GIANNI GARAVELLI, NICOLA CIVETTA, ADI GIOVANETTI, SIRIO MACCIONI, GAEL GREENE 41014 CHICAGO 03/13/85 03/16/86 08/10/86 THE ART OF FINE DINING JAMES VILLAS, DAVID SCHOENBRUN, JOHN MARIANI 41014 CHICAGO 03/13/86 03/23/86 GAY RIGHTS: PRO AND CON MATT FOREMAN, PASTOR JESSE LEE, RABBI YEHUDA LEVIN, DR. WILLIAM A. MARRA, DAVID P. ROTHENBERG, THOMAS B. STODDARD 41994 CHICAGO (T) 01/16/86 03/30/86 PART I: FOREIGN WOMEN RATE AMERICAN MEN LILIANE MONTEVECCHI, HELGA WAGNER, JOANNA KIMBERLEY, ASHA PUTHLI 41047 CHICAGO 05/01/85 03/30/86 PART II: TITLED EUROPEANS PRINCE MICHAEL OF GREECE, COUNTESS DONINA CICOGNA MOZZONI, PRINCE DIMITRI OF YUGOSLAVIA, BARON FRANCOIS DE SAMBUCY, PRINCESS KATALIN ZU WINDISCH-GRAETZ 41047 CHICAGO 03/19/86 04/06/86 PART I: HOW TO BECOME A MILLIONAIRE TOM FATJO, JR., VICTOR KIAM, LANE NEMETH, THOMAS MONAGHAN, RICHARD THALHEIMER 41995 CHICAGO (T) 02/04/86 04/13/86 PART I: DIVORCED BUT FRIENDLY MARTI SCHULZ, BRYCE BOND, EDWARD BOTWIN, CAROL BOTWIN 41050 CHICAGO (T) 03/25/86 04/27/86 DOCTORS REVEAL THE LATEST IN SEX THERAPIES HELEN SINGER KAPLAN, M.D., HAROLD LIEF, M.D., CLIFFORD SAGER, M.D., MAJ-BRITT ROSENBAUM, M.D. 41996 CHICAGO (T) 03/31/86 05/04/86 THE MALE POOL - OLDER WOMEN SHARE THEIR RESOURCES LYNN TENDLER GILBERT, FRAN MANDELL, DEANNA WALLACH, DORIS BASS, GLORIA NEUWIRTH 41997 CHICAGO 04/22/86 05/11/86 CATCH A RISING STAR: NEW COMEDIANS MICHAEL HAMPTON-CAIN, BARRY STEIGER, TAYLOR MASON, RICHARD MORRIS, RANDY KLEIN 41999 CHICAGO (T) 05/01/86 05/18/86 07/27/86 THE WORLDS GREATEST SPAS RICHARD SCHMITZ, DR. SIGRUN LANG, DEBORAH SZEKELY, TONI BECK 42001 CHICAGO 03/13/85 05/25/86 ARE WOMEN FOOLS FOR LOVE? DIANE ACKERMAN, CAROL BOTWIN, ALEXANDRA PENNEY, DR. MELVYN KINDER, DR. CONNELL COWAN 41017 CHICAGO (T) 04/29/86 06/01/86 AN INTERVIEW WITH JOSEPH A CALIFANO, JR.: WHO LIVES, WHO DIES, WHO PAYS 42000 04/26/86 06/08/86 BADINAGE WITH BILL COSBY AND GIANNI GARAVELLI 42002 CHICAGO (T) 04/10/86 06/15/86 I DO, I DO, I DO - MANY TIMES MARRIED BARBARA TOBER, DIANA HUFF, SY KABACK, FRANKLIN B. ZIMMERMAN, RUTH BATCHELOR, "CARMEN" 41998 CHICAGO (T) 06/05/86 06/22/86 08/24/86 GROWING UP IN BROOKLINE MIKE WALLACE, JOHN D. SPOONER, RCHARD N. GOODWIN 42003 CHICAGO (T)

COMMITTEE MEMBERS HEARING FURTHER TESTIMONY AS THEY CONTINUE TO INVESTIGATE MADISON GUARANTY SAVINGS AND LOAN.

Ashley Madison dating website hacked; Soho: Day: Close shot of 'Monogramy' sign in sex shop window Sign above shop, 'Simply Pleasure.Com'/ Reporter to camera

1450 FORD KAVANAUGH HRG GOP FS1 79 UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HEARING: Nomination of the Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (Day 5) Full Committee DATE: Thursday, September 27, 2018 TIME: 10:00 AM LOCATION: Dirksen Senate Office Building 226 PRESIDING: Chairman Chuck Grassley AGENDA: September 17, 2018 NOTICE OF COMMITTEE HEARING CONTINUATION The Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing on the nomination of the Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States will continue Monday, September 24, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building. By order of the Chairman. September 21, 2018 POSTPONEMENT NOTICE OF COMMITTEE HEARING CONTINUATION The Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing on the nomination of the Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States scheduled to continue Monday, September 24, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building has been postponed. By order of the Chairman. September 23, 2018 RESCHEDULED NOTICE OF COMMITTEE HEARING CONTINUATION The Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing on the nomination of the Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States will continue on Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. By order of the Chairman. MEMBER STATEMENTS: Senator Chuck Grassley (R - IA) WITNESSES: PANEL VI Professor Christine Blasey Ford, Ph.D. Palo Alto University Palo Alto, CA PANEL VII The Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh Nominee to Serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Chevy Chase, MD 3:07:33 PM [Kavanaugh enters the room] Sen. Grassley >> Judge Kavanaugh, we welcome you. Are you ready? I have something I want to clear up from the last meeting that doesn't affect you. So before I swear you, I would like to explain my response to senator Kennedy right after the break. At that time I entered into the record the statements of three 3 3:08:32 PM witnesses Dr. Ford said were also at the party. These statements were provided to us under penalty of felony, by if you lie to congress. As soon as my team learned the names of these three potential witnesses, we immediately reached out to them, requesting an interview. In response all three submitted statements to us denying any knowledge of the gathering Dr. Ford described. If we had calls with them, we would have invited the minority to join. Every time that we've received any information regarding judge Kavanaugh, we've sought to immediately follow through and investigate. The minority staff sat on Dr. Ford's letter for weeks and staff told us that they believed it is, quote, highly 3:09:33 PM inappropriate to have these follow-up calls before the FBI finishes its investigation, end of quote, even though the FBI had completed its background information. When we followed up with judge Kavanaugh after we received Dr. Ford's allegations, the ranking member staff didn't join us, even though these calls are usually done on a bipartisan basis. They joined other calls with the judge but they didn't participate or ask any questions. Would you please rise, si do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? Judge Kavanaugh >> I do. Sen. Grassley >> And like we offered to senator -- or to Dr. Ford, you can take whatever time you want now for your opening statement and then we'll go to questions. So proceed. 3:10:33 PM Judge Kavanaugh >> Mr. Chairman, ranking member Feinstein, members of the committee, thank you for allowing me to make my statement. I wrote it myself yesterday afternoon and evening. No one has seen a draft or it except for one of my former law clerks. This is my statement. Less than two weeks ago Dr. Ford publicly accused me of committing wrongdoing at an event more than 36 years ago when we were both in high school. I denied the allegation immediately, categorically and unequivocally. All four people allegedly at the event, including Dr. Ford's long-time friend miss Kaiser, have said they recall no such event. Her long-time friend, miss Kaiser, said under penalty of felony that she does not know me 3:11:33 PM and does not believe she ever saw me at a party ever. Here is the quote from miss Kaiser's attorney's letter. Quote, simply put, miss Kaiser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and does not recall being at a party present with or without miss think about that fact. The day after the allegation appeared, I told this committee that I wanted a hearing as soon as possible to clear my name. I demanded a hearing for the very next day. Unfortunately it took the committee ten days to get to this hearing. In those ten long days, unfortunately and as I predicted, my family and my name have been 3:12:32 PM totally and permanently destroyed by vicious and false additional accusations. The ten-day delay has been harmful to me and my family, to the supreme court and to the country. When this allegation first arose, I welcomed any kind of investigation, Senate, FBI or otherwise. The committee now has conducted a thorough investigation and I've cooperated fully. I know that any kind of investigation, Senate, FBI, Mon -- Montgomery county police, whatever, will clear me. Listen to the people I know. Listen to the people who have known me my whole life. Listen to the people I've grown up with and worked with and played with and coached with and dated and taught and gone to games with and had beers with. Listen to the witnesses who allegedly were at this event 36 years ago. Listen to miss Keyser. 3:13:41 PM She does not know me. I was not at the party described by Dr. Ford.. This confirmation process has become a national disgrace. The constitution gives the senate an important role in the confirmation process. But you have replaced advice and consent with search and destroy. Since my nomination in July, there has been a frenzy on the left to come up with something, anything, to block my confirmation. Shortly after I was nominated the democratic senate leader said he would, quote, "oppose me with everything he's got." A democratic senator on this committee publicly referred to me as evil. Evil. Think about that word. And said that those who supported me were, quote, complicit in evil. 3:14:42 PM Another democratic senator on this committee said, quote, Judge Kavanaugh is your worst a former head of the democratic national committee said, quote, Judge Kavanaugh will threaten the lives of millions of Americans for decades to come. I understand the passions of the moment, but I would say to those senators your words have meaning. Millions of Americans listened carefully to you. Given comments like those, is it any surprise that people have been willing to do anything to make any physical threat against my family, to send any violent e-mail to my wife, to make any kind of allegation against me and against my friends to blow me up and take me down? 3:15:43 PM You showed the wind. For decades to come I fear the whole country will reap the whirlwind. The behavior of several of the Democratic members of this committee a few weeks ago was an embarrassment. At least it was just a good old fashioned attempt at bourquin. Those efforts didn't work when I did at least okay enough at the hearings that it looked like I might actually get confirmed, a new tactic was needed. Some of you were lying in wait and had it ready. This first allegation was held in secret for weeks by a democratic member of this committee and by staff. It would be needed only if you couldn't take me out on the merits. When it was needed, this allegation released and publicly deployed over Dr. Ford's wishes. And then -- And then as no doubt was 3:16:47 PM expected, if not planned, came a long series of false, last-minute smears designed to scare me and drive me out of the process before any hearing occurred. Crazy stuff. Gangs, illegitimate children, fights on boats in Rhode Island. All nonsense reported breathlessly and often uncritically by the media. This has destroyed my family and my good name, a good name built up through decades of very hard work and public service at the highest levels of the American government. This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled with apparent pent-up anger about president Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on 3:17:50 PMa behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups. This is a circus. The consequences will extend long past my nomination. The consequences will be with us for decades. This grotesque and coordinated character assassination will dissuade competent and good people of all political persuasions from serving our country. And as we all know, in the United States political system of the early 2000s, what goes around comes around . I am an optimistic guy. I always trying to on the sunrise side of the mountain, to be optimistic about the day that is coming. But today I have to say that I fear for the future. Last time I was here I told this committee that a federal judge 3:18:53 PM must be independent, not swayed by public or political pressure. I said I was such a judge and I am. I will not be intimidated into withdrawing from this process. You've tried hard. You've given it your all. No one can question your effort, but your coordinated and well-funded effort to destroy my good name and destroy my family will not drive me out. The vile threats of violence against my family will not drive me out. You may defeat me in the final vote but you'll never get me to quit. Never. I'm here today to tell the truth. I've never sexual assaulted anyone, not in high school, not in college, not ever. Sexual assault is horrific. One of my closest friends to this day is a woman who was 3:19:15 PM sexually abused and who in the 1990s when we were in our 30s confided in me about the abuse and sought my advice. I was one of the only people she consulted. Allegations of sexual assault must always be taken seriously, always. Those who make allegations always deserve to be heard. At the same time, the person who is the subject of the allegations also deserves to be heard. Due process is a foundation of the American rule of law. Due process means listening to both sides. As I told you at my hearing three weeks ago, I'm the only child of Martha and Ed Kavanaugh. They are here today. When I was 10, my mom went to law school and as a lawyer she 3:20:55 PM worked hard and overcame barriers, including the workplace sexual harassment that so many women faced at the time and still face today. She became a trail blazer, one of Maryland's earliest women prosecutors and trial judges. She and my dad taught me the importance of equality and respect for all people and she inspired me to be a lawyer and a judge. Last time I was here I told you that when my mom was a prosecutor and I was in high school, she used to practice her closing arguments at the dining room table on my dad and me. As I told you, her trademark line was "Use your common sense, what rings true, what rings false. Her trademark line is a good reminder as we sit here today, some 36 years after the alleged event occurred, when there is no 3:21:56 PM corroboration and indeed it is refuted by the people allegedly there. After I have been in the public arena for 26 years without even a hint, a whiff of an allegation like this and when my nomination to the supreme court was just about to be voted on at a time when I'm called evil by a democratic member of this committee, while democratic opponents of my nomination say people will die if I am confirmed. This onslaught of last-minute allegations does not ring true. I'm not questioning that Dr. Ford may have been sexual assaulted by some person in some place at some time, but I have never done this to her or to anyone. That's not who I am. It is not who I was. I am innocent of this charge. 3:23:00 PM I intend no ill will to Dr. Ford and her family. The other night Ashley and my daughter liza said their prayers and little liza all of ten years old said to Ashley, we should pray for the woman. (chokes up) That's a lot of wisdom from a 10-year-old. We mean no ill will. First let's start with my career. For the last 26 years, since 1992, I've served in many high-profile and sensitive government positions, for which the FBI has investigated my 3:24:01 PM background six separate times. Six separate FBI background investigations over 26 years. All of them after the event alleged here. I have been in the public arena and under extreme public scrutiny for decades. In 1992 I worked for the office of solicitor general in the department of justice. In 1993 I clerked on the Supreme Court for Justice Anthony Kennedy. I spent four years at the independent counsel's office during the 1990s. That office was the subject of enormous scrutiny from the media and the public. During 1998, the year of the impeachment of president Clinton, our office generally and I personally were in the middle of an intense national media and political spotlight. I and other leading members of can Starr's office were 3:25:00 PM opposition research from head to toe, from birth to the present day. Recall the people who were exposed that year of 1998 as having engaged in some sexual wrongdoing or indiscretions in their past. One person on the left even paid a million dollars for people who report evidence of sexual wrongdoing and it worked. Exposed some prominent people. Nothing about me. From 2001 to 2006 I worked for president George W. Bush in the white house. As staff secretary I was by President Bush's side for three years and was entrusted with the nation's most sensitive secrets. I traveled on air force one all over the country and the world with president Bush. I went everywhere with him, from Texas to Pakistan, from Alaska to Australia, from Buckingham palace to the Vatican. Three years in the west wing, 3:26:04 PM five and a half years in the white house. I was then nominated to be a judge on the D.C. Circuit. I was thoroughly vetted by the white house, the FBI, the American bar Association and this committee. I sat before this committee for two thorough confirmation hearings in 2004 and 2006. For the past 12 years leading up to my nomination for this job, I've served in a very public arena as a federal judge on what is often referred to as the second most important court in the country. I've handled some of the most significant and sensitive cases affecting the lives and liberties of the American people. I have been a good judge. And for this nomination, another FBI background investigation, another American bar association investigation, 31 hours of hearings, 65 senator meetings, 1,200 written questions, more 3:27:06 PM than all previous supreme court nominees combined. Throughout that entire time, throughout my 53 years and seven months on this Earth, until last week no one ever accused me of any kind of sexual misconduct. No one. Ever. A lifetime, a lifetime of public service and a lifetime of high-profile public service, at the highest levels of American government and never a hint of anything of this kind. And that's because nothing of this kind ever happened. Second, let's turn to specifics. I categorically and unequivocally deny the allegation against me by Dr. Ford. I never had any sexual or physical encounter of any kind 3:28:03 PM with Dr. Ford. I never attended a gathering like the once Dr. Ford describes in her allegation. I've never sexually assaulted Dr. Ford or anyone. Again, I am not questioning that Dr. Ford may have been sexual assaulted by some person in some place at some time, but I have never done that to her or to anyone. Dr. Ford's allegation stems from a party that she alleges occurred during the summer of 1982, 36 years ago. I was 17 years old between my Junior and Senior years of high school at Georgetown Prep, a rigorous, all boys Catholic Jesuit High School in Rockville, Maryland. When my friends and I spent time together at parties on weekends, it was usually with friends from nearby Catholic all-girl high schools: Stone ridge, Holy 3:29:09 PM Child, Visitation, Emaculata, Holy Cross. Dr. Ford did not attend one of those schools. She attended an independent private school named Holton Arms and she was a year behind me. She and I did not travel in the same social circles. It is possible that we met at some point at some events, although I do not recall that. To repeat, all of the people identified by Dr. Ford as being present at the party have said they do not remember any such party ever happening. Importantly her friend, Ms. Keyser, has not only denied knowledge of the party, Ms. Keyser said under penalty of felony she does not know me, does not recall ever being at a party with me ever and my two male friends who were allegedly there, who knew me well, have told this committee 3:30:08 PM under penalty of felony that they do not recall any such party and that I never did or would do anything like this. Dr. Ford's allegation is not merely uncorroborated, it is refuted by the very people she says were there, including by a long-time friend of hers. Refuted. Third, Dr. Ford has said that this event occurred at a house near Columbia country club, which is at the corner of Connecticut Avenue and the east/west highway in Chevy Chase, Maryland. In her letter to Senator Feinstein, she said there were four other people at the house, but none of those people nor I lived near Columbia country club. As of the summer of 1982, Dr. Ford was 15 and could not drive yet. And she did not live near Columbia Country Club. She says confidently that she had one beer at the party but she does 3:31:13 PM not say how she got to the house in question or how she got home or whose house it was. Fourth, I've submitted to this committee detailed calendars recording my activities in the summer of 1982. Why did I keep calendars? My dad started keeping detailed calendars of his life in 1978. He did so as both a calendar and a diary. He was a very organized guy to put it mildly. 3:32:14 PM Christmas time we sit around and he would regale us with old stories, milestones, old wed willings, old events from his calendars. In ninth grade -- in ninth grade in 1980 I started keeping calendars of my own, for me also it's both a calendar and a diary. I've kept such calendars and diaries for the last 38 years. Mine are not as good as my dad's in some years and when I was a kid, the calendars are about what you would expect from a kid, some goofy parts, some embarrassing parts, but I did have the summer of 1982 3:33:15 PM documented pretty well. The event described by Dr. Ford presumably happened on a weekend because I believe everyone worked and had jobs in the Summers. And in any event, a drunken early evening event of the kind she describes presumably happened on a weekend. If it was a weekend, my calendars show that I was out of town almost every weekend night before football training camp started in late August. The only weekend nights that I was in D.C. were Friday, June 4, when I was with my dad at a pro golf tournament. And had my high school achievement test at 8:30 the next morning. I also was in D.C. On Saturday 3:34:16 PM night August 7th, but I was at a small gathering at Becky's house in rockville with Matt, Denise, Lori and Jenny. Their names are all listed on my calendar. I won't use their last names here. And then on the weekend of August 20 to 22nd, I was staying at the Garrett's with Pat and Chris as we did final preparations for football training camp that began on Sunday the 22nd. As the calendars confirm, that weekend before a brutal football training camp schedule was no time for parties. So let me emphasize this point. If the party described by Dr. Ford happened in the summer of 1982 on a weekend night, my calendar shows all but definitively that I was not there. During the weekdays in the 3:35:16 PM summer of 1982, as you can see, I was out of town for two weeks of the summer for a trip to the beach with friends and at the legendary five-star basketball camp in Holmesdale, Pennsylvania. When I was in town, I spent much of my time working, working out, lifting weights, playing basketball or hanging out and having some beers with friends as we talked about life and football and school and girls. Some have noticed that I didn't have church on Sundays on my calendars. I also didn't list brushing my teeth, and for me, going to church on Sundays was like brushing my teeth, automatic. Still is. In the summer of 1981 I had worked construction. 3:36:16 PM In the summer of 1982 my job was cutting lawns. I had my own business of sorts. You see some specifics about the lawn cutting listed on the August calendar page when I had to time the last lawn cuttings of the summer of various lawns before football training camp. I played in a lot of summer league basketball games for the Georgetown prep team at night at Blair high school in silver spring many nights I worked out with other guys at Tobin's house. He was the great quarterback on our football team, and his dad ran workouts. Or lifted weight at Georgetown prep in preparation for the football season. I attended and watched many 3:37:17 PM sporting events, as is my habit to this day. The calendar shows a few gatherings at friends but none of those gatherings include the group of people Dr. Ford has I've had. As my calendars show, I was very precise about listing who was there, very precise. Keep in mind my calendars also were diaries of sorts, forward looking and backward looking, just like my dad's. You can see, for example, I crossed O missed workouts and the cancelled doctor appointments and that I listed the precise people who had shown up for certain events. The calendars are obviously not dispositive on their own, but they are another piece of evidence in the mix for you to consider. 3:38:10 PM >> Fifth, Dr. Ford's allegation is radically inconsistent with my record and my character from my youth to the present day. As students at an all-boys catholic jesuit school, many of us became friends and remain friends to this day with students at local catholic all-girls schools. One feature of my life that has remained true to the present day is that I've always had a lot of close female friends. I'm not talking about girl friends. I'm talking about friends who are women. That started in high school. Maybe it was because I'm an only child and had no sisters. But anyway, we had no social media or text or e-mail and we talked on the phone. I remember talking almost every night it seems to my friends Amy 3:39:23 PM or Julie or Kristen or Karen or Suzanne or Mora or Megan or Nikki. The list goes on. Friends for a lifetime built on a foundation of talking through school and life starting at age 14. Several of those great women are in the seats right behind me my friends and I sometimes got together and had parties on weekends. The drinking age was 18 in Maryland for most of my time in high school and was 18 in D.C. for all of my time in high school. I drank beer with my friends. Almost everyone did. sometimes I had too many beers. Sometimes others did. I liked beer. I still like beer. But I did not drink beer to the point of blacking out, and I never sexual assaulted anyone. 3:40:26 PM There is a bright line between drinking beer, which I gladly do and which I fully embrace, and sexual assaulting someone, which is a violent crime. If every American who drinks beer or every American who drank beer in high school is suddenly presumed guilty of sexual assault, it will be an ugly new place in this country. I never committed sexual assault. As high school students, we sometimes did goofy or stupid things. I doubt we're alone in looking back at high school and cringing at some things. For one thing, our year book was a disaster. I think some editors and students wanted the year book to be some combination of "Animal House", Caddie Shack" and "Fast times at Ridgemont High," which 3:41:25 PM were all movies in that time. Many of us went along with the year books at times to the point of absurdity. This past week my friends and I have cringed when we read about it and talked to each other. One thing in particular we were sad about, one of our good -- one of our good female friends who we would admire and went to 3:42:37 PM dances with had her name used on n the yearbook page with the term alumnus. But in this circus, the media has determined the team was related to sex. It was not related to sex. She and I never had any sexual interaction at all. So sorry to her for that year book reference. This may sound a bit trivial given all that we are here for, but one thing I want to try to make sure of in the future is my friendship with her. She was and is a great person. As to sex, this is not a topic I 3:43:35 PM er imagined would come up at a judicial confirmation hearing. But I want to give a full picture of who I was. I never had sexual intercourse or anything clo to it during high school or for many years after that. In some crowds I was probably a little outwardly shy about my inexperience. I tried to hide that. At the same time I was also inwardly proud of it. For me and the girls who I was friends with, that lack of major or rampant sexual activity in high school was a matter of faith and respect and caution. The committee has a letter from 65 women who knew me in high school. They said that I always treated 3:44:35 PM them with dignity and respect. That letter came together in one night 35 years after graduation while a sexual assault allegation was pending against me in a very fraught and public situation where they knew -- they knew they'd be vilified if they defended me. Think about that. They put themselves on the line for me. Those are some awesome women and I love all of them. You also have a letter from women who knew me in college. Most were varsity athletes. They described that I treated them as friends and equals and supported them in their sports at a time when women's sports 3:45:37 PM was emerging in the wake of title 9. I thank all of them for all of their texts and their e-mails and their support. One of those women friends from college, a self-described liberal and feminist sent me a text last night that said, quote, "deep breaths, you're a good man, a good man, a good man." A text yesterday from another one of those good women friends from college that said, quote, "Brett be strong, pulling for you from my core." A third text yesterday from yet another of those women I'm friends with from college said, "I'm holding you in the light of God. 3:46:40 PM As I said in my opening statement the last time I was with you, cherish your friends, look out for your friends, lift up your friends, love your friends. I felt that love more over the last two weeks than I ever have in my life. I thank all my friends. I love all my friends. Throughout my life I've devoted huge efforts to encouraging and promoting the careers of women. I will put my record up against anyone's, male or female. I am proud of the letter from 84 women. 84 women who worked with me at the bush White House from 2001 to 2006 and described me as, quote, "a man of the highest integrity." Read the op-ed from Sarah Day from Yarmouth, Maine. 3:47:39 PM She worked in Oval Office Operations outside of President Bush's office. Here's what she recently wrote in centralmaine.com and today she stands by her comments. Quote, "Brett was an advocate for young women like me. He encouraged me to take on more responsibility and to feel confident in my role. In fact, during the 2004 Republican National Convention, Brett gave me the opportunity to help with the preparation and review of the President's remarks, something I never -- something I never would have had the chance to do if he had not included me. And he didn't just include me in the work, he made sure I was at Madison Square garden to watch the President's speech instead of back at the hotel to watch it on TV." end quote. 3:48:39 PM As a judge since 2006, I've had the privilege of hiring four recent law school graduates to serve as my law clerks each year. The law clerks for federal judges are the best and brightest graduates of American law schools. They work for one-year terms for judges after law school and then they move on in their careers. For judges, training these young lawyers is an important responsibility. The clerks will become the next generation of American lawyers and leaders, judges and senators. Just after I took the bench in 2006, there was a major "New York Times" story about the low number of women law clerks at the supreme court and Federal appeals courts. I took notice and I took action. A majority of my 48 law clerks over the last 12 years have been 3:49:41 PM women. In a letter to this committee, my women law clerks said I was one of the strongest advocates in the Federal Judiciary for women lawyers. They wrote that the legal profession is fairer and more equal because of me. In my time on the bench, no federal judge, not a single one in the country, has sent more women law clerks to clerk on the supreme court than I have. Before this allegation arose two weeks ago, I was required to start making certain administrative preparations for my possible transfer to the supreme court, just in case I was confirmed. As part of that I had to, in essence, contingently hire a first group of four law clerks who could be available to clerk at the supreme court for me on a moment's notice. I did so and contingently hired 3:50:44 PM four law clerks. All four are women. If confirmed, I'll be the first justice in the history of the Supreme Court to have a group of all women law clerks. That is who I am. That is who I was. Over the past 12 years I've taught constitutional law to hundreds of students, primarily at Harvard law school. I was hired by then Dean and now Justice Elana Kagan. One of my former women students, a Democrat, testified to this committee that I was an even-handed professor who treats people fairly and with respect. In a letter to this committee, my former students, male and female alike, wrote that I displayed a character that impressed us all. I love teaching law, but thanks 3:51:46 PM to what some of you on this side of the committee have unleashed, I may never be able to teach again. For the past seven years I've coached my two daughters' basketball teams. You saw many of those girls when they came to my hearing for a couple of hours. You have a letter from the parents of the girls I coached that describe my dedication, commitment and character. I coach because I know that a girls' confidence on the basketball court translates into confidence in other aspects of life. I love coaching more than anything I've ever done in my whole life, but thanks to what some of you on this side of the committee have unleashed, I may never be able to coach again. 3:52:48 PM I've been a judge for 12 years. I have a long record of service to America and to the constitution. I revere the constitution. I am deeply grateful to President Trump for nominating me. He was so gracious to my family and me on the July night he announced my nomination at the White House. I thank him for his steadfast support. When I accepted the President's nomination, Ashley and I knew this process would be challenging. We never expected that it would devolve into this. Explaining this to our daughters has been about the worst experience of our lives. Ashley has been a rock. I thank god every day for Ashley and my family. 3:53:53 PM We live in a country devoted to due process and the rule of law. That means taking allegations seriously, but if the mere allegation, the mere assertion of an allegation, a refuted allegation from 36 years ago is enough to destroy a person's life and career, we will have abandoned the basic principles of fairness and due process that define our legal system and our country. I ask you to judge me by the standard that you would want applied to your father, your husband, your brother or your son. My family and I intend no ill 3:54:50 PM will towards Dr. Ford or her family. And I swear today under oath before the Senate and the Nation, before my family and god, I am innocent of this charge. Sen. Grassley >> Thank you, Judge Kavanaugh. Before we start questions, I won't repeat what I said this morning, but we'll do it the same way as we did for Dr. Ford in five-minute rounds, and so we will start with Ms. Mitchell. Rachel Mitchell >> Good afternoon, judge Kavanaugh. We have not met. My name is Rachel Mitchell. I would like to go over a couple of guidelines for our question and answer session today. If I ask a question -- 3:55:57 PM Kavanaugh >> Yeah, I'm ready. Rachel Mitchell >> Okay. Rachel Mitchell >> Thank you. Rachel Mitchell >> If I ask a question -- If I ask a question that you do not understand, please ask me to clarify it or ask it in a different way. I may ask a question where I incorporate some information you've already provided. If I get it wrong, please correct me. I'm not going to ask you to guess. If you do estimate, please let me know you're estimating. I want to make sure that all of the committee members have gotten a copy of the definition of sexual behavior. Sen. Grassley >> Yes. At least I have one. >> I don't. >> We all do. Rachel Mitchell >> And you have that as well? Judge Kavanaugh? Kavanaugh >> Yeah. Rachel Mitchell >> Okay. First of all, have you been given or reviewed a copy of the questions that I will be asking you? Kavanaugh >> No. Rachel Mitchell >> Has anyone told you the questions that I will be asking you? Kavanaugh >> No. Rachel Mitchell >> I want you to take a moment to review the definition that's before you of sexual 3:56:55 PM behavior. Have you had a chance to review it? Kavanaugh >> I have. I may refer back to it if I can. Rachel Mitchell >> Yes, please. I would like to point out two specific parts. Among the examples of sexual behavior, it includes rubbing or grinding your genitals against somebody clothed or unclothed, and I would also point out that the definition applies whether or not the acts were sexually motivated objection for example, horse play. Do you understand the definition I've given you? Kavanaugh >> I do. Rachel Mitchell >> And, again, if at any time you need to review that, please -- please let me know. Dr. Ford has stated that somewhere between five or six people were present at the gathering on this date. You, Mark Judge, Leland Ingham or the time or Leland Keyser now, Patrick P.J. Smith, 3:58:27 PM Dr. Ford and an unnamed boy. Do you know Mark Judge? Kavanaugh >> I do. Rachel Mitchell >> How do you know him? Kavanaugh >> He was a friend at Georgetown Prep starting in ninth grade. He's a -- uh.. someone in our, you know, group of friends. We were a very friendly group in class. You saw the letter that's been sent by my friends from Georgetown Prep. Funny guy. Great writer. Popular. Developed a serious addiction problem that lasted decades, near death a couple of times from his addiction, suffered tremendously from -- Rachel Mitchell >> What is your relationship with him like now? 3:59:29 PM Kavanaugh >> I haven't talked to him in a couple of years. We've probably been on mass e-mails or group e-mails that go around among my high school friends. Rachel Mitchell >> Okay. And how did you know Patrick Smith? Kavanaugh >> Also ninth grade. Georgetown Prep. Went by P.J. Then. He and I lived close to one another, played football together. He was defensive tackle. I was a cornerback and receiver. We carpooled to school along with D. Davis. Every year, the three of us for two years. I didn't have a car. So one of the two of them would drive every day, and I would be in -- you know, they would pick me up. Rachel Mitchell >> What's your relationship like with him now? >> He lives in the area. I see him once in a while. I haven't seen him since this -- this thing. Rachel Mitchell >> Okay. Kavanaugh >> Do you know Leland Ingham or 4:00:31 PM Rachel Mitchell Leland Keyser? Kavanaugh >> I know of her. It's possible I, you know, saw or met her in high school at some point at some event Yeah I know her -- I know of her, and, again, I don't want to rule out having crossed paths with 4:00:48 PM her in high school. Rachel Mitchell >> Similar to your statements about knowing Dr. Ford? Kavanaugh >> Correct. Rachel Mitchell >> Okay. Sen. Grassley >> Senator Feinstein. Sen. Feinstein >> Judge Kavanaugh, it's my understanding that you have denied the allegations by Dr. Ford, Ms. Ramirez and Ms. Swetnick, is that correct? Kavanaugh >> Yes. Sen. Feinstein >> All three of these women have asked the FBI to investigate their claims. I listened carefully to what you said. Your concern is evident and clear, and if you're very confident of your position and you appear to be, why aren't you also asking the FBI to investigate these claims. Kavanaugh >> Senator, I'll do whatever the committee wants. I wanted a hearing the day after the allegation came up. I wanted to be here that day. 4:01:50 PM Instead, ten days passed where all this nonsense is coming out, you know, that I'm in gangs, I'm boats in Rhode Island. I'm in Colorado, you know, I'm cited all over the place, and these things are printed and run breathlessly by cable news. You know, I wanted a hearing the next day. My family's been destroyed by this, senator. Destroyed. >> And I'm -- and -- Kavanaugh >> And whoever wants -- whatever the committee decides, you know. I'm -- I'm all in. Sen. Feinstein The question is -- Kavanaugh Immediately. I'm all in immediately. Sen. Feinstein >> And the terrible and hard part of this is when we get an allegation we're not in a position to prove it or disprove it. Therefore, we have to depend on some outside authority for it. And it would just seem to me then when these allegations came forward that you would want the FBI to investigate those claims 4:02:51 PM and clear it up once and for all. Kavanaugh >> Senator, the committee investigates. It's not for me to say how to do it. But just so you know, the FBI doesn't reach a conclusion. They would give you a couple 302s that just tell you what we said. So I'm here. I wanted to be -- I wanted to be here the next day. It's an outrage that I was not allowed to come and immediately defend my name and say I didn't do this and give you all this evidence. I'm not even -- I'm not even in D.C. On the weekends in the summer of 1982. This happened on a weekday, I'm not at high school for a summer league game -- I'm not at Tobin's house working out, not at a movie with Suzanne. You know I wanted to be here right away. Sen. Feinstein >> Well, the difficult thing is -- these -- these hearings 4:03:49 PM are set and -- set by the majority, but I'm talking about getting the evidence and having the evidence looked at and I don't understand, you know, we hear from the witnesses, but the FBI isn't interviewing them and isn't giving us any facts, so all we have -- Kavanaugh >> You're interviewing me. You're interviewing me. You're doing it, senator. I'm sorry to interrupt. But you're doing it. There's no conclusions reached. Sen. Feinstein >> And what you're saying if I understand it is that the allegations by Dr. Ford, Ms. Ramirez and Ms. Swetnick are wrong. Kavanaugh >> That is -- that is emphatically what I'm saying, emphatically. The Swetnick thing is a joke. 4:04:48 PM That is a farce. Sen. Feinstein >> Would you like to say more about it? Kavanaugh >> No. Sen. Feinstein >> Okay. >> That's it, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sen. Grassley >> Miss Mitchell. Rachel Mitchell >> Dr. Ford has described you as being intoxicated at a party. Did you consume alcohol during your high school years? Kavanaugh >> Yes, we drank beer. My friends and I, the boys and girls, yes, we drank beer. I liked beer. I still like beer. We drank beer. The drinking age as I noted was 18 so the seniors were legal, senior year in high school people were legal to drink, and, yeah, we drank beer and I said sometimes -- sometimes probably had too many beers and sometimes other people had team beers. We drink beer. We liked beer. Rachel Mitchell >> What do you consider to be too many beers? Kavanaugh >> I don't know. You know, we -- whatever the 4:05:50 PM chart says, blood-alcohol chart. Rachel Mitchell >> When you talked to Fox News the other night you said that there were times in high school when people might have had too many beers on occasion. Does that include you? Kavanaugh >> Sure. Rachel Mitchell >> Okay. Have you ever passed out from drinking? Kavanaugh >> Passed out would be -- no, but I've gone to sleep, but I've never blacked out, that's the allegation and -- and that -- that's wrong. Rachel Mitchell >> So let's talk about your time in high school. In high school after drinking, did you ever wake up in a different location than you remembered passing out or going Kavanaugh >> No. No. Rachel Mitchell >> Did you ever wake up with your clothes in a different condition or fewer clothes on than you remembered when you went to sleep or passed out? Kavanaugh >> No, no. Rachel Mitchell >> Did you ever tell -- did 4:06:53 PM anyone ever tell you about something that happened in your presence that you didn't remember during a time that you had been drinking? Kavanaugh >> No. We drank beer and did I think the vast majority of our age at the time but in any event we drank beer and -- and still do, so whatever -- yeah. Rachel Mitchell >> During the time in high school when you would be drinking, did anyone ever tell you about something that you did not remember? Kavanaugh >> No. Rachel Mitchell >> Dr. Ford described a small gathering of people at a suburban Maryland home in the summer of 1982. She said that Mark Judge, P.J. Smith and Leland Ingham also were present as well as an unknown male and that the people were drinking to varying 4:07:54 PM Degrees. Were you ever at a gathering that fits that description? Kavanaugh >> No, as I've said in my opening statements, opening statement. Rachel Mitchell >> Dr. Ford described an incident where she was alone in a room with you and Mark Judge. Have you ever been alone in a room with Dr. Ford and Mark Judge? Kavanaugh >> No. Rachel Mitchell >> Dr. Ford described an incident where you were grinding your genitals on her. Have you ever ground or rubbed your genitals against Dr. Ford? Kavanaugh >> No. Rachel Mitchell >> Dr. Ford described an incident where you covered her mouth with your hand. Have you ever covered Dr. Ford's mouth with your hand? Kavanaugh >> No. Rachel Mitchell >> Dr. Ford described an incident where you tried to remove her clothes. Have you ever tried to remove her clothes? Kavanaugh >> No. Rachel Mitchell >> Referring back to the definition of sexual behavior that I have given you, have you ever at any time engaged in sexual behavior with Dr. Ford? Kavanaugh >> No. Rachel Mitchell >> Have you ever engaged in 4:08:55 PM sexual behavior with Dr. Ford, even if it was consensual? Kavanaugh >> No. Rachel Mitchell >> I want to talk about your calendars. You submitted to the committee copies of the written calendars that you've talked about for the months of may, June, July and August of 1982. Do you have them in front of you? Kavanaugh >> I do. Rachel Mitchell >> Did you create these calendars in the sense of all the handwriting that's on them? Kavanaugh >> Yes. Rachel Mitchell >> Is it exclusively your handwriting? Kavanaugh >> Yes. Rachel Mitchell >>When did you make these entries? Kavanaugh >> In 1982. Rachel Mitchell >> Has anything changed -- been changed for those since 1982? Kavanaugh >> No. Rachel Mitchell >> Do these calendars represent your plans for each day, or do they document, in other words, prospectively. Kavanaugh >> Right. Rachel Mitchell >> Or do they document what actually occurred more like a diary? 4:09:57 PM Kavanaugh >> They are both forward looking and backward looking. As you can tell by looking at them, because I cross out certain doctor's appointments that didn't happen or one night where I was supposed to lift weights, I crossed that out because I obviously didn't make it that night, so you can see things that I didn't do. I crossed out in retrospect, and also when I list the specific people who I was with, that is likely backward looking. Rachel Mitchell >> You explained that you kept these calendars because your father started keeping them in 1978, I believe you said. Kavanaugh >> Mm-hmm. Rachel Mitchell >> That's why you kept them, in other words, you wrote on them, but why did you keep them up until this time? Kavanaugh >> Well, he's kept them, too, since 1978, so I -- he's a good role model. Sen. Grassley >> Miss Mitchell. You'll have to stop. Rachel Mitchell >> Oh, I'm sorry. Sen. Grassley >> Judge Kavanaugh has asked for a break so we'll take a a 15-minute break.

Ashley Madison dating website hacked; ENGLAND: London: INT Professor Peter Sommer (Cyber Security Expert) LIVE STUDIO interview SOT

Ashley Madison website hacked; LIB (T21051509) ENGLAND: EXT Anonymous shots of couples away along road holding hands

<p><pi><b>This package/segment contains third party material. Unless otherwise noted, this material may only be used within this package/segment.</b></pi></p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--SUPERS</b>--</p>\n<p>Monday</p>\n<p>Las Vegas</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>:00-:10</p>\n<p>Julie Page </p>\n<p>Mother</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>:53-1:02</p>\n<p>Paul Page</p>\n<p>Father</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>1:09-1:15</p>\n<p>Bryce Page</p>\n<p>Brother</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--LEAD IN</b>--</p>\n<p>THE FAMILY OF ASHLEY PRINCE -- WHO WAS KILLED IN A SHOOTING AT A SUMMERLIN, NEVADA LAW OFFICE LAST WEEK... SPOKE OUT FOR THE FIRST TIME ON MONDAY.</p>\n<p>HER PARENTS DESCRIBING YEARS OF WHAT THEY SAID WAS VERBAL AND MENTAL ABUSE BY HER EX-HUSBAND DYLAN HOUSTON -- THE SON OF THE ALLEGED SHOOTER.</p>\n<p>AS KELSEY MC-FARLAND REPORTS ... THE PARENTS SAY THEY PLAN TO FIGHT FOR FULL CUSTODY OF ASHLEY AND DYLAN'S TWO CHILDREN ... WHO ARE CURRENTLY BEING CARED FOR BY ASHLEY'S SISTER.</p>\n<p><b>--REPORTER PKG-AS FOLLOWS</b>--</p>\n<p>Julie Page/Mother: "It is important to us that the Las Vegas community know our daughter Ashley was a devoted and fierce protector of her children."</p>\n<p>ASHLEY'S PARENTS WERE JOINED BY HER SIBLINGS - LEXIE, BRYCE, AND MADISON -DELIVERING A PLANNED STATEMENT WITH THEIR ATTORNEY AND PUBLIC RELATIONS TEAM.</p>\n<p>Julie Page: "She battled relentlessly and, unfortunately, all our fears became a reality."</p>\n<p>PRINCE'S PARENTS CLAIM ASHLEY FEARED FOR HER LIFE EVERYDAY... EVEN REQUESTING SECURITY AT PUBLIC EVENTS.</p>\n<p>THE COUPLE POINTED TO ALLEGED ALCOHOL AND DRUG ABUSE PROBLEMS HOUSTON HAD ... SAYING DYLAN FAILED COURT-ORDERED BREATHALYZER TESTS.</p>\n<p>THE FAMILY ALSO CLAIMS ASHLEY'S EX-HUSBAND OFTEN SENT A BARRAGE OF THREATENING TEXT MESSAGES -- UP TO 70 A DAY -- AND THAT IT DIDN'T STOP EVEN AFTER A COURT APPROVED MONITORING MESSAGE APP WAS IMPLEMENTED.</p>\n<p>Paul Page/Father: "Dylan texted Ashley, 'Prepare for a future on your knees.' And 'I'll chisel you down to a weaker and worthless sack of bones.'" </p>\n<p>HER BROTHER DESCRIBED HIS SISTER AS BRAVE AND DEVOTED TO HER CHILDREN...</p>\n<p>Bryce Page/Brother: "Family was so important to Ashley from a young age, her dream was to create the same warm, loving environment of her own."</p>\n<p>ATTORNEY DANA DWIGGINS SAYS THE FAMILY INTENDS TO FILE A GUARDIANSHIP PETITION FOR ASHLEY AND DYLAN'S TWO CHILDREN.</p>\n<p>CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS ARE EXPECTED TO RESUME WEDNESDAY.</p>\n<p>WE REACHED OUT TO DYLAN HOUSTON AS WELL AS THE HOUSTON FAMILY'S COMMUNICATION TEAM.</p>\n<p>WE RECEIVED A STATEMENT WHICH READS IN PART: "OUR HOPE IS THAT THROUGH THE DARKNESS, DESPAIR AND GRIEF, WE CAN FOCUS ON THE NEEDS OF THE CHILDREN. THAT FOCUS EXTENDS TO REFRAINING FROM REBUTTALS AND PUBLIC ACCUSATIONS. DYLAN IS A DEDICATED FATHER AND IS SINGULARLY COMMITTED TO THE WELFARE OF HIS CHILDREN. WE ARE HOPEFUL THAT DYLAN AND HIS CHILDREN WILL BE TOGETHER SOON AND WE ALL CAN BEGIN TO HEAL."</p>\n<p><b>--TAG</b>--</p>\n<p>FUNERAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR ASHLEY ARE STILL PENDING.</p>\n<p>THE MEMORIAL SERVICE FOR ATTORNEY DENNIS PRINCE - ASHLEY'S HUSBAND - IS TUESDAY. </p>\n<p>AUTHORITIES SAY JOSEPH HOUSTON FATALLY SHOT ASHLEY AND DENNIS PRINCE BEFORE TURNING THE GUN ON HIMSELF. </p>\n<p><b>-----END-----CNN.SCRIPT-----</b></p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--KEYWORD TAGS--</b></p>\n<p>NEVADA CRIME SHOOTING VIOLENCE SUMMERLIN ASHLEY DENNIS PRINCE</p>\n<p></p>

1450 FORD KAVANAUGH HRG HEAD ON FS3 81 UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HEARING: Nomination of the Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (Day 5) Full Committee DATE: Thursday, September 27, 2018 TIME: 10:00 AM LOCATION: Dirksen Senate Office Building 226 PRESIDING: Chairman Chuck Grassley AGENDA: September 17, 2018 NOTICE OF COMMITTEE HEARING CONTINUATION The Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing on the nomination of the Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States will continue Monday, September 24, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building. By order of the Chairman. September 21, 2018 POSTPONEMENT NOTICE OF COMMITTEE HEARING CONTINUATION The Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing on the nomination of the Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States scheduled to continue Monday, September 24, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building has been postponed. By order of the Chairman. September 23, 2018 RESCHEDULED NOTICE OF COMMITTEE HEARING CONTINUATION The Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing on the nomination of the Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States will continue on Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. By order of the Chairman. MEMBER STATEMENTS: Senator Chuck Grassley (R - IA) WITNESSES: PANEL VI Professor Christine Blasey Ford, Ph.D. Palo Alto University Palo Alto, CA PANEL VII The Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh Nominee to Serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Chevy Chase, MD 3:07:33 PM [Kavanaugh enters the room] Sen. Grassley >> Judge Kavanaugh, we welcome you. Are you ready? I have something I want to clear up from the last meeting that doesn't affect you. So before I swear you, I would like to explain my response to senator Kennedy right after the break. At that time I entered into the record the statements of three 3 3:08:32 PM witnesses Dr. Ford said were also at the party. These statements were provided to us under penalty of felony, by if you lie to congress. As soon as my team learned the names of these three potential witnesses, we immediately reached out to them, requesting an interview. In response all three submitted statements to us denying any knowledge of the gathering Dr. Ford described. If we had calls with them, we would have invited the minority to join. Every time that we've received any information regarding judge Kavanaugh, we've sought to immediately follow through and investigate. The minority staff sat on Dr. Ford's letter for weeks and staff told us that they believed it is, quote, highly 3:09:33 PM inappropriate to have these follow-up calls before the FBI finishes its investigation, end of quote, even though the FBI had completed its background information. When we followed up with judge Kavanaugh after we received Dr. Ford's allegations, the ranking member staff didn't join us, even though these calls are usually done on a bipartisan basis. They joined other calls with the judge but they didn't participate or ask any questions. Would you please rise, si do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? Judge Kavanaugh >> I do. Sen. Grassley >> And like we offered to senator -- or to Dr. Ford, you can take whatever time you want now for your opening statement and then we'll go to questions. So proceed. 3:10:33 PM Judge Kavanaugh >> Mr. Chairman, ranking member Feinstein, members of the committee, thank you for allowing me to make my statement. I wrote it myself yesterday afternoon and evening. No one has seen a draft or it except for one of my former law clerks. This is my statement. Less than two weeks ago Dr. Ford publicly accused me of committing wrongdoing at an event more than 36 years ago when we were both in high school. I denied the allegation immediately, categorically and unequivocally. All four people allegedly at the event, including Dr. Ford's long-time friend miss Kaiser, have said they recall no such event. Her long-time friend, miss Kaiser, said under penalty of felony that she does not know me 3:11:33 PM and does not believe she ever saw me at a party ever. Here is the quote from miss Kaiser's attorney's letter. Quote, simply put, miss Kaiser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and does not recall being at a party present with or without miss think about that fact. The day after the allegation appeared, I told this committee that I wanted a hearing as soon as possible to clear my name. I demanded a hearing for the very next day. Unfortunately it took the committee ten days to get to this hearing. In those ten long days, unfortunately and as I predicted, my family and my name have been 3:12:32 PM totally and permanently destroyed by vicious and false additional accusations. The ten-day delay has been harmful to me and my family, to the supreme court and to the country. When this allegation first arose, I welcomed any kind of investigation, Senate, FBI or otherwise. The committee now has conducted a thorough investigation and I've cooperated fully. I know that any kind of investigation, Senate, FBI, Mon -- Montgomery county police, whatever, will clear me. Listen to the people I know. Listen to the people who have known me my whole life. Listen to the people I've grown up with and worked with and played with and coached with and dated and taught and gone to games with and had beers with. Listen to the witnesses who allegedly were at this event 36 years ago. Listen to miss Keyser. 3:13:41 PM She does not know me. I was not at the party described by Dr. Ford.. This confirmation process has become a national disgrace. The constitution gives the senate an important role in the confirmation process. But you have replaced advice and consent with search and destroy. Since my nomination in July, there has been a frenzy on the left to come up with something, anything, to block my confirmation. Shortly after I was nominated the democratic senate leader said he would, quote, "oppose me with everything he's got." A democratic senator on this committee publicly referred to me as evil. Evil. Think about that word. And said that those who supported me were, quote, complicit in evil. 3:14:42 PM Another democratic senator on this committee said, quote, Judge Kavanaugh is your worst a former head of the democratic national committee said, quote, Judge Kavanaugh will threaten the lives of millions of Americans for decades to come. I understand the passions of the moment, but I would say to those senators your words have meaning. Millions of Americans listened carefully to you. Given comments like those, is it any surprise that people have been willing to do anything to make any physical threat against my family, to send any violent e-mail to my wife, to make any kind of allegation against me and against my friends to blow me up and take me down? 3:15:43 PM You showed the wind. For decades to come I fear the whole country will reap the whirlwind. The behavior of several of the Democratic members of this committee a few weeks ago was an embarrassment. At least it was just a good old fashioned attempt at bourquin. Those efforts didn't work when I did at least okay enough at the hearings that it looked like I might actually get confirmed, a new tactic was needed. Some of you were lying in wait and had it ready. This first allegation was held in secret for weeks by a democratic member of this committee and by staff. It would be needed only if you couldn't take me out on the merits. When it was needed, this allegation released and publicly deployed over Dr. Ford's wishes. And then -- And then as no doubt was 3:16:47 PM expected, if not planned, came a long series of false, last-minute smears designed to scare me and drive me out of the process before any hearing occurred. Crazy stuff. Gangs, illegitimate children, fights on boats in Rhode Island. All nonsense reported breathlessly and often uncritically by the media. This has destroyed my family and my good name, a good name built up through decades of very hard work and public service at the highest levels of the American government. This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled with apparent pent-up anger about president Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on 3:17:50 PMa behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups. This is a circus. The consequences will extend long past my nomination. The consequences will be with us for decades. This grotesque and coordinated character assassination will dissuade competent and good people of all political persuasions from serving our country. And as we all know, in the United States political system of the early 2000s, what goes around comes around . I am an optimistic guy. I always trying to on the sunrise side of the mountain, to be optimistic about the day that is coming. But today I have to say that I fear for the future. Last time I was here I told this committee that a federal judge 3:18:53 PM must be independent, not swayed by public or political pressure. I said I was such a judge and I am. I will not be intimidated into withdrawing from this process. You've tried hard. You've given it your all. No one can question your effort, but your coordinated and well-funded effort to destroy my good name and destroy my family will not drive me out. The vile threats of violence against my family will not drive me out. You may defeat me in the final vote but you'll never get me to quit. Never. I'm here today to tell the truth. I've never sexual assaulted anyone, not in high school, not in college, not ever. Sexual assault is horrific. One of my closest friends to this day is a woman who was 3:19:15 PM sexually abused and who in the 1990s when we were in our 30s confided in me about the abuse and sought my advice. I was one of the only people she consulted. Allegations of sexual assault must always be taken seriously, always. Those who make allegations always deserve to be heard. At the same time, the person who is the subject of the allegations also deserves to be heard. Due process is a foundation of the American rule of law. Due process means listening to both sides. As I told you at my hearing three weeks ago, I'm the only child of Martha and Ed Kavanaugh. They are here today. When I was 10, my mom went to law school and as a lawyer she 3:20:55 PM worked hard and overcame barriers, including the workplace sexual harassment that so many women faced at the time and still face today. She became a trail blazer, one of Maryland's earliest women prosecutors and trial judges. She and my dad taught me the importance of equality and respect for all people and she inspired me to be a lawyer and a judge. Last time I was here I told you that when my mom was a prosecutor and I was in high school, she used to practice her closing arguments at the dining room table on my dad and me. As I told you, her trademark line was "Use your common sense, what rings true, what rings false. Her trademark line is a good reminder as we sit here today, some 36 years after the alleged event occurred, when there is no 3:21:56 PM corroboration and indeed it is refuted by the people allegedly there. After I have been in the public arena for 26 years without even a hint, a whiff of an allegation like this and when my nomination to the supreme court was just about to be voted on at a time when I'm called evil by a democratic member of this committee, while democratic opponents of my nomination say people will die if I am confirmed. This onslaught of last-minute allegations does not ring true. I'm not questioning that Dr. Ford may have been sexual assaulted by some person in some place at some time, but I have never done this to her or to anyone. That's not who I am. It is not who I was. I am innocent of this charge. 3:23:00 PM I intend no ill will to Dr. Ford and her family. The other night Ashley and my daughter liza said their prayers and little liza all of ten years old said to Ashley, we should pray for the woman. (chokes up) That's a lot of wisdom from a 10-year-old. We mean no ill will. First let's start with my career. For the last 26 years, since 1992, I've served in many high-profile and sensitive government positions, for which the FBI has investigated my 3:24:01 PM background six separate times. Six separate FBI background investigations over 26 years. All of them after the event alleged here. I have been in the public arena and under extreme public scrutiny for decades. In 1992 I worked for the office of solicitor general in the department of justice. In 1993 I clerked on the Supreme Court for Justice Anthony Kennedy. I spent four years at the independent counsel's office during the 1990s. That office was the subject of enormous scrutiny from the media and the public. During 1998, the year of the impeachment of president Clinton, our office generally and I personally were in the middle of an intense national media and political spotlight. I and other leading members of can Starr's office were 3:25:00 PM opposition research from head to toe, from birth to the present day. Recall the people who were exposed that year of 1998 as having engaged in some sexual wrongdoing or indiscretions in their past. One person on the left even paid a million dollars for people who report evidence of sexual wrongdoing and it worked. Exposed some prominent people. Nothing about me. From 2001 to 2006 I worked for president George W. Bush in the white house. As staff secretary I was by President Bush's side for three years and was entrusted with the nation's most sensitive secrets. I traveled on air force one all over the country and the world with president Bush. I went everywhere with him, from Texas to Pakistan, from Alaska to Australia, from Buckingham palace to the Vatican. Three years in the west wing, 3:26:04 PM five and a half years in the white house. I was then nominated to be a judge on the D.C. Circuit. I was thoroughly vetted by the white house, the FBI, the American bar Association and this committee. I sat before this committee for two thorough confirmation hearings in 2004 and 2006. For the past 12 years leading up to my nomination for this job, I've served in a very public arena as a federal judge on what is often referred to as the second most important court in the country. I've handled some of the most significant and sensitive cases affecting the lives and liberties of the American people. I have been a good judge. And for this nomination, another FBI background investigation, another American bar association investigation, 31 hours of hearings, 65 senator meetings, 1,200 written questions, more 3:27:06 PM than all previous supreme court nominees combined. Throughout that entire time, throughout my 53 years and seven months on this Earth, until last week no one ever accused me of any kind of sexual misconduct. No one. Ever. A lifetime, a lifetime of public service and a lifetime of high-profile public service, at the highest levels of American government and never a hint of anything of this kind. And that's because nothing of this kind ever happened. Second, let's turn to specifics. I categorically and unequivocally deny the allegation against me by Dr. Ford. I never had any sexual or physical encounter of any kind 3:28:03 PM with Dr. Ford. I never attended a gathering like the once Dr. Ford describes in her allegation. I've never sexually assaulted Dr. Ford or anyone. Again, I am not questioning that Dr. Ford may have been sexual assaulted by some person in some place at some time, but I have never done that to her or to anyone. Dr. Ford's allegation stems from a party that she alleges occurred during the summer of 1982, 36 years ago. I was 17 years old between my Junior and Senior years of high school at Georgetown Prep, a rigorous, all boys Catholic Jesuit High School in Rockville, Maryland. When my friends and I spent time together at parties on weekends, it was usually with friends from nearby Catholic all-girl high schools: Stone ridge, Holy 3:29:09 PM Child, Visitation, Emaculata, Holy Cross. Dr. Ford did not attend one of those schools. She attended an independent private school named Holton Arms and she was a year behind me. She and I did not travel in the same social circles. It is possible that we met at some point at some events, although I do not recall that. To repeat, all of the people identified by Dr. Ford as being present at the party have said they do not remember any such party ever happening. Importantly her friend, Ms. Keyser, has not only denied knowledge of the party, Ms. Keyser said under penalty of felony she does not know me, does not recall ever being at a party with me ever and my two male friends who were allegedly there, who knew me well, have told this committee 3:30:08 PM under penalty of felony that they do not recall any such party and that I never did or would do anything like this. Dr. Ford's allegation is not merely uncorroborated, it is refuted by the very people she says were there, including by a long-time friend of hers. Refuted. Third, Dr. Ford has said that this event occurred at a house near Columbia country club, which is at the corner of Connecticut Avenue and the east/west highway in Chevy Chase, Maryland. In her letter to Senator Feinstein, she said there were four other people at the house, but none of those people nor I lived near Columbia country club. As of the summer of 1982, Dr. Ford was 15 and could not drive yet. And she did not live near Columbia Country Club. She says confidently that she had one beer at the party but she does 3:31:13 PM not say how she got to the house in question or how she got home or whose house it was. Fourth, I've submitted to this committee detailed calendars recording my activities in the summer of 1982. Why did I keep calendars? My dad started keeping detailed calendars of his life in 1978. He did so as both a calendar and a diary. He was a very organized guy to put it mildly. 3:32:14 PM Christmas time we sit around and he would regale us with old stories, milestones, old wed willings, old events from his calendars. In ninth grade -- in ninth grade in 1980 I started keeping calendars of my own, for me also it's both a calendar and a diary. I've kept such calendars and diaries for the last 38 years. Mine are not as good as my dad's in some years and when I was a kid, the calendars are about what you would expect from a kid, some goofy parts, some embarrassing parts, but I did have the summer of 1982 3:33:15 PM documented pretty well. The event described by Dr. Ford presumably happened on a weekend because I believe everyone worked and had jobs in the Summers. And in any event, a drunken early evening event of the kind she describes presumably happened on a weekend. If it was a weekend, my calendars show that I was out of town almost every weekend night before football training camp started in late August. The only weekend nights that I was in D.C. were Friday, June 4, when I was with my dad at a pro golf tournament. And had my high school achievement test at 8:30 the next morning. I also was in D.C. On Saturday 3:34:16 PM night August 7th, but I was at a small gathering at Becky's house in rockville with Matt, Denise, Lori and Jenny. Their names are all listed on my calendar. I won't use their last names here. And then on the weekend of August 20 to 22nd, I was staying at the Garrett's with Pat and Chris as we did final preparations for football training camp that began on Sunday the 22nd. As the calendars confirm, that weekend before a brutal football training camp schedule was no time for parties. So let me emphasize this point. If the party described by Dr. Ford happened in the summer of 1982 on a weekend night, my calendar shows all but definitively that I was not there. During the weekdays in the 3:35:16 PM summer of 1982, as you can see, I was out of town for two weeks of the summer for a trip to the beach with friends and at the legendary five-star basketball camp in Holmesdale, Pennsylvania. When I was in town, I spent much of my time working, working out, lifting weights, playing basketball or hanging out and having some beers with friends as we talked about life and football and school and girls. Some have noticed that I didn't have church on Sundays on my calendars. I also didn't list brushing my teeth, and for me, going to church on Sundays was like brushing my teeth, automatic. Still is. In the summer of 1981 I had worked construction. 3:36:16 PM In the summer of 1982 my job was cutting lawns. I had my own business of sorts. You see some specifics about the lawn cutting listed on the August calendar page when I had to time the last lawn cuttings of the summer of various lawns before football training camp. I played in a lot of summer league basketball games for the Georgetown prep team at night at Blair high school in silver spring many nights I worked out with other guys at Tobin's house. He was the great quarterback on our football team, and his dad ran workouts. Or lifted weight at Georgetown prep in preparation for the football season. I attended and watched many 3:37:17 PM sporting events, as is my habit to this day. The calendar shows a few gatherings at friends but none of those gatherings include the group of people Dr. Ford has I've had. As my calendars show, I was very precise about listing who was there, very precise. Keep in mind my calendars also were diaries of sorts, forward looking and backward looking, just like my dad's. You can see, for example, I crossed O missed workouts and the cancelled doctor appointments and that I listed the precise people who had shown up for certain events. The calendars are obviously not dispositive on their own, but they are another piece of evidence in the mix for you to consider. 3:38:10 PM >> Fifth, Dr. Ford's allegation is radically inconsistent with my record and my character from my youth to the present day. As students at an all-boys catholic jesuit school, many of us became friends and remain friends to this day with students at local catholic all-girls schools. One feature of my life that has remained true to the present day is that I've always had a lot of close female friends. I'm not talking about girl friends. I'm talking about friends who are women. That started in high school. Maybe it was because I'm an only child and had no sisters. But anyway, we had no social media or text or e-mail and we talked on the phone. I remember talking almost every night it seems to my friends Amy 3:39:23 PM or Julie or Kristen or Karen or Suzanne or Mora or Megan or Nikki. The list goes on. Friends for a lifetime built on a foundation of talking through school and life starting at age 14. Several of those great women are in the seats right behind me my friends and I sometimes got together and had parties on weekends. The drinking age was 18 in Maryland for most of my time in high school and was 18 in D.C. for all of my time in high school. I drank beer with my friends. Almost everyone did. sometimes I had too many beers. Sometimes others did. I liked beer. I still like beer. But I did not drink beer to the point of blacking out, and I never sexual assaulted anyone. 3:40:26 PM There is a bright line between drinking beer, which I gladly do and which I fully embrace, and sexual assaulting someone, which is a violent crime. If every American who drinks beer or every American who drank beer in high school is suddenly presumed guilty of sexual assault, it will be an ugly new place in this country. I never committed sexual assault. As high school students, we sometimes did goofy or stupid things. I doubt we're alone in looking back at high school and cringing at some things. For one thing, our year book was a disaster. I think some editors and students wanted the year book to be some combination of "Animal House", Caddie Shack" and "Fast times at Ridgemont High," which 3:41:25 PM were all movies in that time. Many of us went along with the year books at times to the point of absurdity. This past week my friends and I have cringed when we read about it and talked to each other. One thing in particular we were sad about, one of our good -- one of our good female friends who we would admire and went to 3:42:37 PM dances with had her name used on n the yearbook page with the term alumnus. But in this circus, the media has determined the team was related to sex. It was not related to sex. She and I never had any sexual interaction at all. So sorry to her for that year book reference. This may sound a bit trivial given all that we are here for, but one thing I want to try to make sure of in the future is my friendship with her. She was and is a great person. As to sex, this is not a topic I 3:43:35 PM er imagined would come up at a judicial confirmation hearing. But I want to give a full picture of who I was. I never had sexual intercourse or anything clo to it during high school or for many years after that. In some crowds I was probably a little outwardly shy about my inexperience. I tried to hide that. At the same time I was also inwardly proud of it. For me and the girls who I was friends with, that lack of major or rampant sexual activity in high school was a matter of faith and respect and caution. The committee has a letter from 65 women who knew me in high school. They said that I always treated 3:44:35 PM them with dignity and respect. That letter came together in one night 35 years after graduation while a sexual assault allegation was pending against me in a very fraught and public situation where they knew -- they knew they'd be vilified if they defended me. Think about that. They put themselves on the line for me. Those are some awesome women and I love all of them. You also have a letter from women who knew me in college. Most were varsity athletes. They described that I treated them as friends and equals and supported them in their sports at a time when women's sports 3:45:37 PM was emerging in the wake of title 9. I thank all of them for all of their texts and their e-mails and their support. One of those women friends from college, a self-described liberal and feminist sent me a text last night that said, quote, "deep breaths, you're a good man, a good man, a good man." A text yesterday from another one of those good women friends from college that said, quote, "Brett be strong, pulling for you from my core." A third text yesterday from yet another of those women I'm friends with from college said, "I'm holding you in the light of God. 3:46:40 PM As I said in my opening statement the last time I was with you, cherish your friends, look out for your friends, lift up your friends, love your friends. I felt that love more over the last two weeks than I ever have in my life. I thank all my friends. I love all my friends. Throughout my life I've devoted huge efforts to encouraging and promoting the careers of women. I will put my record up against anyone's, male or female. I am proud of the letter from 84 women. 84 women who worked with me at the bush White House from 2001 to 2006 and described me as, quote, "a man of the highest integrity." Read the op-ed from Sarah Day from Yarmouth, Maine. 3:47:39 PM She worked in Oval Office Operations outside of President Bush's office. Here's what she recently wrote in centralmaine.com and today she stands by her comments. Quote, "Brett was an advocate for young women like me. He encouraged me to take on more responsibility and to feel confident in my role. In fact, during the 2004 Republican National Convention, Brett gave me the opportunity to help with the preparation and review of the President's remarks, something I never -- something I never would have had the chance to do if he had not included me. And he didn't just include me in the work, he made sure I was at Madison Square garden to watch the President's speech instead of back at the hotel to watch it on TV." end quote. 3:48:39 PM As a judge since 2006, I've had the privilege of hiring four recent law school graduates to serve as my law clerks each year. The law clerks for federal judges are the best and brightest graduates of American law schools. They work for one-year terms for judges after law school and then they move on in their careers. For judges, training these young lawyers is an important responsibility. The clerks will become the next generation of American lawyers and leaders, judges and senators. Just after I took the bench in 2006, there was a major "New York Times" story about the low number of women law clerks at the supreme court and Federal appeals courts. I took notice and I took action. A majority of my 48 law clerks over the last 12 years have been 3:49:41 PM women. In a letter to this committee, my women law clerks said I was one of the strongest advocates in the Federal Judiciary for women lawyers. They wrote that the legal profession is fairer and more equal because of me. In my time on the bench, no federal judge, not a single one in the country, has sent more women law clerks to clerk on the supreme court than I have. Before this allegation arose two weeks ago, I was required to start making certain administrative preparations for my possible transfer to the supreme court, just in case I was confirmed. As part of that I had to, in essence, contingently hire a first group of four law clerks who could be available to clerk at the supreme court for me on a moment's notice. I did so and contingently hired 3:50:44 PM four law clerks. All four are women. If confirmed, I'll be the first justice in the history of the Supreme Court to have a group of all women law clerks. That is who I am. That is who I was. Over the past 12 years I've taught constitutional law to hundreds of students, primarily at Harvard law school. I was hired by then Dean and now Justice Elana Kagan. One of my former women students, a Democrat, testified to this committee that I was an even-handed professor who treats people fairly and with respect. In a letter to this committee, my former students, male and female alike, wrote that I displayed a character that impressed us all. I love teaching law, but thanks 3:51:46 PM to what some of you on this side of the committee have unleashed, I may never be able to teach again. For the past seven years I've coached my two daughters' basketball teams. You saw many of those girls when they came to my hearing for a couple of hours. You have a letter from the parents of the girls I coached that describe my dedication, commitment and character. I coach because I know that a girls' confidence on the basketball court translates into confidence in other aspects of life. I love coaching more than anything I've ever done in my whole life, but thanks to what some of you on this side of the committee have unleashed, I may never be able to coach again. 3:52:48 PM I've been a judge for 12 years. I have a long record of service to America and to the constitution. I revere the constitution. I am deeply grateful to President Trump for nominating me. He was so gracious to my family and me on the July night he announced my nomination at the White House. I thank him for his steadfast support. When I accepted the President's nomination, Ashley and I knew this process would be challenging. We never expected that it would devolve into this. Explaining this to our daughters has been about the worst experience of our lives. Ashley has been a rock. I thank god every day for Ashley and my family. 3:53:53 PM We live in a country devoted to due process and the rule of law. That means taking allegations seriously, but if the mere allegation, the mere assertion of an allegation, a refuted allegation from 36 years ago is enough to destroy a person's life and career, we will have abandoned the basic principles of fairness and due process that define our legal system and our country. I ask you to judge me by the standard that you would want applied to your father, your husband, your brother or your son. My family and I intend no ill 3:54:50 PM will towards Dr. Ford or her family. And I swear today under oath before the Senate and the Nation, before my family and god, I am innocent of this charge. Sen. Grassley >> Thank you, Judge Kavanaugh. Before we start questions, I won't repeat what I said this morning, but we'll do it the same way as we did for Dr. Ford in five-minute rounds, and so we will start with Ms. Mitchell. Rachel Mitchell >> Good afternoon, judge Kavanaugh. We have not met. My name is Rachel Mitchell. I would like to go over a couple of guidelines for our question and answer session today. If I ask a question -- 3:55:57 PM Kavanaugh >> Yeah, I'm ready. Rachel Mitchell >> Okay. Rachel Mitchell >> Thank you. Rachel Mitchell >> If I ask a question -- If I ask a question that you do not understand, please ask me to clarify it or ask it in a different way. I may ask a question where I incorporate some information you've already provided. If I get it wrong, please correct me. I'm not going to ask you to guess. If you do estimate, please let me know you're estimating. I want to make sure that all of the committee members have gotten a copy of the definition of sexual behavior. Sen. Grassley >> Yes. At least I have one. >> I don't. >> We all do. Rachel Mitchell >> And you have that as well? Judge Kavanaugh? Kavanaugh >> Yeah. Rachel Mitchell >> Okay. First of all, have you been given or reviewed a copy of the questions that I will be asking you? Kavanaugh >> No. Rachel Mitchell >> Has anyone told you the questions that I will be asking you? Kavanaugh >> No. Rachel Mitchell >> I want you to take a moment to review the definition that's before you of sexual 3:56:55 PM behavior. Have you had a chance to review it? Kavanaugh >> I have. I may refer back to it if I can. Rachel Mitchell >> Yes, please. I would like to point out two specific parts. Among the examples of sexual behavior, it includes rubbing or grinding your genitals against somebody clothed or unclothed, and I would also point out that the definition applies whether or not the acts were sexually motivated objection for example, horse play. Do you understand the definition I've given you? Kavanaugh >> I do. Rachel Mitchell >> And, again, if at any time you need to review that, please -- please let me know. Dr. Ford has stated that somewhere between five or six people were present at the gathering on this date. You, Mark Judge, Leland Ingham or the time or Leland Keyser now, Patrick P.J. Smith, 3:58:27 PM Dr. Ford and an unnamed boy. Do you know Mark Judge? Kavanaugh >> I do. Rachel Mitchell >> How do you know him? Kavanaugh >> He was a friend at Georgetown Prep starting in ninth grade. He's a -- uh.. someone in our, you know, group of friends. We were a very friendly group in class. You saw the letter that's been sent by my friends from Georgetown Prep. Funny guy. Great writer. Popular. Developed a serious addiction problem that lasted decades, near death a couple of times from his addiction, suffered tremendously from -- Rachel Mitchell >> What is your relationship with him like now? 3:59:29 PM Kavanaugh >> I haven't talked to him in a couple of years. We've probably been on mass e-mails or group e-mails that go around among my high school friends. Rachel Mitchell >> Okay. And how did you know Patrick Smith? Kavanaugh >> Also ninth grade. Georgetown Prep. Went by P.J. Then. He and I lived close to one another, played football together. He was defensive tackle. I was a cornerback and receiver. We carpooled to school along with D. Davis. Every year, the three of us for two years. I didn't have a car. So one of the two of them would drive every day, and I would be in -- you know, they would pick me up. Rachel Mitchell >> What's your relationship like with him now? >> He lives in the area. I see him once in a while. I haven't seen him since this -- this thing. Rachel Mitchell >> Okay. Kavanaugh >> Do you know Leland Ingham or 4:00:31 PM Rachel Mitchell Leland Keyser? Kavanaugh >> I know of her. It's possible I, you know, saw or met her in high school at some point at some event Yeah I know her -- I know of her, and, again, I don't want to rule out having crossed paths with 4:00:48 PM her in high school. Rachel Mitchell >> Similar to your statements about knowing Dr. Ford? Kavanaugh >> Correct. Rachel Mitchell >> Okay. Sen. Grassley >> Senator Feinstein. Sen. Feinstein >> Judge Kavanaugh, it's my understanding that you have denied the allegations by Dr. Ford, Ms. Ramirez and Ms. Swetnick, is that correct? Kavanaugh >> Yes. Sen. Feinstein >> All three of these women have asked the FBI to investigate their claims. I listened carefully to what you said. Your concern is evident and clear, and if you're very confident of your position and you appear to be, why aren't you also asking the FBI to investigate these claims. Kavanaugh >> Senator, I'll do whatever the committee wants. I wanted a hearing the day after the allegation came up. I wanted to be here that day. 4:01:50 PM Instead, ten days passed where all this nonsense is coming out, you know, that I'm in gangs, I'm boats in Rhode Island. I'm in Colorado, you know, I'm cited all over the place, and these things are printed and run breathlessly by cable news. You know, I wanted a hearing the next day. My family's been destroyed by this, senator. Destroyed. >> And I'm -- and -- Kavanaugh >> And whoever wants -- whatever the committee decides, you know. I'm -- I'm all in. Sen. Feinstein The question is -- Kavanaugh Immediately. I'm all in immediately. Sen. Feinstein >> And the terrible and hard part of this is when we get an allegation we're not in a position to prove it or disprove it. Therefore, we have to depend on some outside authority for it. And it would just seem to me then when these allegations came forward that you would want the FBI to investigate those claims 4:02:51 PM and clear it up once and for all. Kavanaugh >> Senator, the committee investigates. It's not for me to say how to do it. But just so you know, the FBI doesn't reach a conclusion. They would give you a couple 302s that just tell you what we said. So I'm here. I wanted to be -- I wanted to be here the next day. It's an outrage that I was not allowed to come and immediately defend my name and say I didn't do this and give you all this evidence. I'm not even -- I'm not even in D.C. On the weekends in the summer of 1982. This happened on a weekday, I'm not at high school for a summer league game -- I'm not at Tobin's house working out, not at a movie with Suzanne. You know I wanted to be here right away. Sen. Feinstein >> Well, the difficult thing is -- these -- these hearings 4:03:49 PM are set and -- set by the majority, but I'm talking about getting the evidence and having the evidence looked at and I don't understand, you know, we hear from the witnesses, but the FBI isn't interviewing them and isn't giving us any facts, so all we have -- Kavanaugh >> You're interviewing me. You're interviewing me. You're doing it, senator. I'm sorry to interrupt. But you're doing it. There's no conclusions reached. Sen. Feinstein >> And what you're saying if I understand it is that the allegations by Dr. Ford, Ms. Ramirez and Ms. Swetnick are wrong. Kavanaugh >> That is -- that is emphatically what I'm saying, emphatically. The Swetnick thing is a joke. 4:04:48 PM That is a farce. Sen. Feinstein >> Would you like to say more about it? Kavanaugh >> No. Sen. Feinstein >> Okay. >> That's it, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sen. Grassley >> Miss Mitchell. Rachel Mitchell >> Dr. Ford has described you as being intoxicated at a party. Did you consume alcohol during your high school years? Kavanaugh >> Yes, we drank beer. My friends and I, the boys and girls, yes, we drank beer. I liked beer. I still like beer. We drank beer. The drinking age as I noted was 18 so the seniors were legal, senior year in high school people were legal to drink, and, yeah, we drank beer and I said sometimes -- sometimes probably had too many beers and sometimes other people had team beers. We drink beer. We liked beer. Rachel Mitchell >> What do you consider to be too many beers? Kavanaugh >> I don't know. You know, we -- whatever the 4:05:50 PM chart says, blood-alcohol chart. Rachel Mitchell >> When you talked to Fox News the other night you said that there were times in high school when people might have had too many beers on occasion. Does that include you? Kavanaugh >> Sure. Rachel Mitchell >> Okay. Have you ever passed out from drinking? Kavanaugh >> Passed out would be -- no, but I've gone to sleep, but I've never blacked out, that's the allegation and -- and that -- that's wrong. Rachel Mitchell >> So let's talk about your time in high school. In high school after drinking, did you ever wake up in a different location than you remembered passing out or going Kavanaugh >> No. No. Rachel Mitchell >> Did you ever wake up with your clothes in a different condition or fewer clothes on than you remembered when you went to sleep or passed out? Kavanaugh >> No, no. Rachel Mitchell >> Did you ever tell -- did 4:06:53 PM anyone ever tell you about something that happened in your presence that you didn't remember during a time that you had been drinking? Kavanaugh >> No. We drank beer and did I think the vast majority of our age at the time but in any event we drank beer and -- and still do, so whatever -- yeah. Rachel Mitchell >> During the time in high school when you would be drinking, did anyone ever tell you about something that you did not remember? Kavanaugh >> No. Rachel Mitchell >> Dr. Ford described a small gathering of people at a suburban Maryland home in the summer of 1982. She said that Mark Judge, P.J. Smith and Leland Ingham also were present as well as an unknown male and that the people were drinking to varying 4:07:54 PM Degrees. Were you ever at a gathering that fits that description? Kavanaugh >> No, as I've said in my opening statements, opening statement. Rachel Mitchell >> Dr. Ford described an incident where she was alone in a room with you and Mark Judge. Have you ever been alone in a room with Dr. Ford and Mark Judge? Kavanaugh >> No. Rachel Mitchell >> Dr. Ford described an incident where you were grinding your genitals on her. Have you ever ground or rubbed your genitals against Dr. Ford? Kavanaugh >> No. Rachel Mitchell >> Dr. Ford described an incident where you covered her mouth with your hand. Have you ever covered Dr. Ford's mouth with your hand? Kavanaugh >> No. Rachel Mitchell >> Dr. Ford described an incident where you tried to remove her clothes. Have you ever tried to remove her clothes? Kavanaugh >> No. Rachel Mitchell >> Referring back to the definition of sexual behavior that I have given you, have you ever at any time engaged in sexual behavior with Dr. Ford? Kavanaugh >> No. Rachel Mitchell >> Have you ever engaged in 4:08:55 PM sexual behavior with Dr. Ford, even if it was consensual? Kavanaugh >> No. Rachel Mitchell >> I want to talk about your calendars. You submitted to the committee copies of the written calendars that you've talked about for the months of may, June, July and August of 1982. Do you have them in front of you? Kavanaugh >> I do. Rachel Mitchell >> Did you create these calendars in the sense of all the handwriting that's on them? Kavanaugh >> Yes. Rachel Mitchell >> Is it exclusively your handwriting? Kavanaugh >> Yes. Rachel Mitchell >>When did you make these entries? Kavanaugh >> In 1982. Rachel Mitchell >> Has anything changed -- been changed for those since 1982? Kavanaugh >> No. Rachel Mitchell >> Do these calendars represent your plans for each day, or do they document, in other words, prospectively. Kavanaugh >> Right. Rachel Mitchell >> Or do they document what actually occurred more like a diary? 4:09:57 PM Kavanaugh >> They are both forward looking and backward looking. As you can tell by looking at them, because I cross out certain doctor's appointments that didn't happen or one night where I was supposed to lift weights, I crossed that out because I obviously didn't make it that night, so you can see things that I didn't do. I crossed out in retrospect, and also when I list the specific people who I was with, that is likely backward looking. Rachel Mitchell >> You explained that you kept these calendars because your father started keeping them in 1978, I believe you said. Kavanaugh >> Mm-hmm. Rachel Mitchell >> That's why you kept them, in other words, you wrote on them, but why did you keep them up until this time? Kavanaugh >> Well, he's kept them, too, since 1978, so I -- he's a good role model. Sen. Grassley >> Miss Mitchell. You'll have to stop. Rachel Mitchell >> Oh, I'm sorry. Sen. Grassley >> Judge Kavanaugh has asked for a break so we'll take a a 15-minute break.

1450 FORD KAVANAUGH HRG DEM FS2 80 UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HEARING: Nomination of the Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (Day 5) Full Committee DATE: Thursday, September 27, 2018 TIME: 10:00 AM LOCATION: Dirksen Senate Office Building 226 PRESIDING: Chairman Chuck Grassley AGENDA: September 17, 2018 NOTICE OF COMMITTEE HEARING CONTINUATION The Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing on the nomination of the Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States will continue Monday, September 24, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building. By order of the Chairman. September 21, 2018 POSTPONEMENT NOTICE OF COMMITTEE HEARING CONTINUATION The Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing on the nomination of the Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States scheduled to continue Monday, September 24, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building has been postponed. By order of the Chairman. September 23, 2018 RESCHEDULED NOTICE OF COMMITTEE HEARING CONTINUATION The Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing on the nomination of the Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States will continue on Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. By order of the Chairman. MEMBER STATEMENTS: Senator Chuck Grassley (R - IA) WITNESSES: PANEL VI Professor Christine Blasey Ford, Ph.D. Palo Alto University Palo Alto, CA PANEL VII The Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh Nominee to Serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Chevy Chase, MD 3:07:33 PM [Kavanaugh enters the room] Sen. Grassley >> Judge Kavanaugh, we welcome you. Are you ready? I have something I want to clear up from the last meeting that doesn't affect you. So before I swear you, I would like to explain my response to senator Kennedy right after the break. At that time I entered into the record the statements of three 3 3:08:32 PM witnesses Dr. Ford said were also at the party. These statements were provided to us under penalty of felony, by if you lie to congress. As soon as my team learned the names of these three potential witnesses, we immediately reached out to them, requesting an interview. In response all three submitted statements to us denying any knowledge of the gathering Dr. Ford described. If we had calls with them, we would have invited the minority to join. Every time that we've received any information regarding judge Kavanaugh, we've sought to immediately follow through and investigate. The minority staff sat on Dr. Ford's letter for weeks and staff told us that they believed it is, quote, highly 3:09:33 PM inappropriate to have these follow-up calls before the FBI finishes its investigation, end of quote, even though the FBI had completed its background information. When we followed up with judge Kavanaugh after we received Dr. Ford's allegations, the ranking member staff didn't join us, even though these calls are usually done on a bipartisan basis. They joined other calls with the judge but they didn't participate or ask any questions. Would you please rise, si do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? Judge Kavanaugh >> I do. Sen. Grassley >> And like we offered to senator -- or to Dr. Ford, you can take whatever time you want now for your opening statement and then we'll go to questions. So proceed. 3:10:33 PM Judge Kavanaugh >> Mr. Chairman, ranking member Feinstein, members of the committee, thank you for allowing me to make my statement. I wrote it myself yesterday afternoon and evening. No one has seen a draft or it except for one of my former law clerks. This is my statement. Less than two weeks ago Dr. Ford publicly accused me of committing wrongdoing at an event more than 36 years ago when we were both in high school. I denied the allegation immediately, categorically and unequivocally. All four people allegedly at the event, including Dr. Ford's long-time friend miss Kaiser, have said they recall no such event. Her long-time friend, miss Kaiser, said under penalty of felony that she does not know me 3:11:33 PM and does not believe she ever saw me at a party ever. Here is the quote from miss Kaiser's attorney's letter. Quote, simply put, miss Kaiser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and does not recall being at a party present with or without miss think about that fact. The day after the allegation appeared, I told this committee that I wanted a hearing as soon as possible to clear my name. I demanded a hearing for the very next day. Unfortunately it took the committee ten days to get to this hearing. In those ten long days, unfortunately and as I predicted, my family and my name have been 3:12:32 PM totally and permanently destroyed by vicious and false additional accusations. The ten-day delay has been harmful to me and my family, to the supreme court and to the country. When this allegation first arose, I welcomed any kind of investigation, Senate, FBI or otherwise. The committee now has conducted a thorough investigation and I've cooperated fully. I know that any kind of investigation, Senate, FBI, Mon -- Montgomery county police, whatever, will clear me. Listen to the people I know. Listen to the people who have known me my whole life. Listen to the people I've grown up with and worked with and played with and coached with and dated and taught and gone to games with and had beers with. Listen to the witnesses who allegedly were at this event 36 years ago. Listen to miss Keyser. 3:13:41 PM She does not know me. I was not at the party described by Dr. Ford.. This confirmation process has become a national disgrace. The constitution gives the senate an important role in the confirmation process. But you have replaced advice and consent with search and destroy. Since my nomination in July, there has been a frenzy on the left to come up with something, anything, to block my confirmation. Shortly after I was nominated the democratic senate leader said he would, quote, "oppose me with everything he's got." A democratic senator on this committee publicly referred to me as evil. Evil. Think about that word. And said that those who supported me were, quote, complicit in evil. 3:14:42 PM Another democratic senator on this committee said, quote, Judge Kavanaugh is your worst a former head of the democratic national committee said, quote, Judge Kavanaugh will threaten the lives of millions of Americans for decades to come. I understand the passions of the moment, but I would say to those senators your words have meaning. Millions of Americans listened carefully to you. Given comments like those, is it any surprise that people have been willing to do anything to make any physical threat against my family, to send any violent e-mail to my wife, to make any kind of allegation against me and against my friends to blow me up and take me down? 3:15:43 PM You showed the wind. For decades to come I fear the whole country will reap the whirlwind. The behavior of several of the Democratic members of this committee a few weeks ago was an embarrassment. At least it was just a good old fashioned attempt at bourquin. Those efforts didn't work when I did at least okay enough at the hearings that it looked like I might actually get confirmed, a new tactic was needed. Some of you were lying in wait and had it ready. This first allegation was held in secret for weeks by a democratic member of this committee and by staff. It would be needed only if you couldn't take me out on the merits. When it was needed, this allegation released and publicly deployed over Dr. Ford's wishes. And then -- And then as no doubt was 3:16:47 PM expected, if not planned, came a long series of false, last-minute smears designed to scare me and drive me out of the process before any hearing occurred. Crazy stuff. Gangs, illegitimate children, fights on boats in Rhode Island. All nonsense reported breathlessly and often uncritically by the media. This has destroyed my family and my good name, a good name built up through decades of very hard work and public service at the highest levels of the American government. This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled with apparent pent-up anger about president Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on 3:17:50 PMa behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups. This is a circus. The consequences will extend long past my nomination. The consequences will be with us for decades. This grotesque and coordinated character assassination will dissuade competent and good people of all political persuasions from serving our country. And as we all know, in the United States political system of the early 2000s, what goes around comes around . I am an optimistic guy. I always trying to on the sunrise side of the mountain, to be optimistic about the day that is coming. But today I have to say that I fear for the future. Last time I was here I told this committee that a federal judge 3:18:53 PM must be independent, not swayed by public or political pressure. I said I was such a judge and I am. I will not be intimidated into withdrawing from this process. You've tried hard. You've given it your all. No one can question your effort, but your coordinated and well-funded effort to destroy my good name and destroy my family will not drive me out. The vile threats of violence against my family will not drive me out. You may defeat me in the final vote but you'll never get me to quit. Never. I'm here today to tell the truth. I've never sexual assaulted anyone, not in high school, not in college, not ever. Sexual assault is horrific. One of my closest friends to this day is a woman who was 3:19:15 PM sexually abused and who in the 1990s when we were in our 30s confided in me about the abuse and sought my advice. I was one of the only people she consulted. Allegations of sexual assault must always be taken seriously, always. Those who make allegations always deserve to be heard. At the same time, the person who is the subject of the allegations also deserves to be heard. Due process is a foundation of the American rule of law. Due process means listening to both sides. As I told you at my hearing three weeks ago, I'm the only child of Martha and Ed Kavanaugh. They are here today. When I was 10, my mom went to law school and as a lawyer she 3:20:55 PM worked hard and overcame barriers, including the workplace sexual harassment that so many women faced at the time and still face today. She became a trail blazer, one of Maryland's earliest women prosecutors and trial judges. She and my dad taught me the importance of equality and respect for all people and she inspired me to be a lawyer and a judge. Last time I was here I told you that when my mom was a prosecutor and I was in high school, she used to practice her closing arguments at the dining room table on my dad and me. As I told you, her trademark line was "Use your common sense, what rings true, what rings false. Her trademark line is a good reminder as we sit here today, some 36 years after the alleged event occurred, when there is no 3:21:56 PM corroboration and indeed it is refuted by the people allegedly there. After I have been in the public arena for 26 years without even a hint, a whiff of an allegation like this and when my nomination to the supreme court was just about to be voted on at a time when I'm called evil by a democratic member of this committee, while democratic opponents of my nomination say people will die if I am confirmed. This onslaught of last-minute allegations does not ring true. I'm not questioning that Dr. Ford may have been sexual assaulted by some person in some place at some time, but I have never done this to her or to anyone. That's not who I am. It is not who I was. I am innocent of this charge. 3:23:00 PM I intend no ill will to Dr. Ford and her family. The other night Ashley and my daughter liza said their prayers and little liza all of ten years old said to Ashley, we should pray for the woman. (chokes up) That's a lot of wisdom from a 10-year-old. We mean no ill will. First let's start with my career. For the last 26 years, since 1992, I've served in many high-profile and sensitive government positions, for which the FBI has investigated my 3:24:01 PM background six separate times. Six separate FBI background investigations over 26 years. All of them after the event alleged here. I have been in the public arena and under extreme public scrutiny for decades. In 1992 I worked for the office of solicitor general in the department of justice. In 1993 I clerked on the Supreme Court for Justice Anthony Kennedy. I spent four years at the independent counsel's office during the 1990s. That office was the subject of enormous scrutiny from the media and the public. During 1998, the year of the impeachment of president Clinton, our office generally and I personally were in the middle of an intense national media and political spotlight. I and other leading members of can Starr's office were 3:25:00 PM opposition research from head to toe, from birth to the present day. Recall the people who were exposed that year of 1998 as having engaged in some sexual wrongdoing or indiscretions in their past. One person on the left even paid a million dollars for people who report evidence of sexual wrongdoing and it worked. Exposed some prominent people. Nothing about me. From 2001 to 2006 I worked for president George W. Bush in the white house. As staff secretary I was by President Bush's side for three years and was entrusted with the nation's most sensitive secrets. I traveled on air force one all over the country and the world with president Bush. I went everywhere with him, from Texas to Pakistan, from Alaska to Australia, from Buckingham palace to the Vatican. Three years in the west wing, 3:26:04 PM five and a half years in the white house. I was then nominated to be a judge on the D.C. Circuit. I was thoroughly vetted by the white house, the FBI, the American bar Association and this committee. I sat before this committee for two thorough confirmation hearings in 2004 and 2006. For the past 12 years leading up to my nomination for this job, I've served in a very public arena as a federal judge on what is often referred to as the second most important court in the country. I've handled some of the most significant and sensitive cases affecting the lives and liberties of the American people. I have been a good judge. And for this nomination, another FBI background investigation, another American bar association investigation, 31 hours of hearings, 65 senator meetings, 1,200 written questions, more 3:27:06 PM than all previous supreme court nominees combined. Throughout that entire time, throughout my 53 years and seven months on this Earth, until last week no one ever accused me of any kind of sexual misconduct. No one. Ever. A lifetime, a lifetime of public service and a lifetime of high-profile public service, at the highest levels of American government and never a hint of anything of this kind. And that's because nothing of this kind ever happened. Second, let's turn to specifics. I categorically and unequivocally deny the allegation against me by Dr. Ford. I never had any sexual or physical encounter of any kind 3:28:03 PM with Dr. Ford. I never attended a gathering like the once Dr. Ford describes in her allegation. I've never sexually assaulted Dr. Ford or anyone. Again, I am not questioning that Dr. Ford may have been sexual assaulted by some person in some place at some time, but I have never done that to her or to anyone. Dr. Ford's allegation stems from a party that she alleges occurred during the summer of 1982, 36 years ago. I was 17 years old between my Junior and Senior years of high school at Georgetown Prep, a rigorous, all boys Catholic Jesuit High School in Rockville, Maryland. When my friends and I spent time together at parties on weekends, it was usually with friends from nearby Catholic all-girl high schools: Stone ridge, Holy 3:29:09 PM Child, Visitation, Emaculata, Holy Cross. Dr. Ford did not attend one of those schools. She attended an independent private school named Holton Arms and she was a year behind me. She and I did not travel in the same social circles. It is possible that we met at some point at some events, although I do not recall that. To repeat, all of the people identified by Dr. Ford as being present at the party have said they do not remember any such party ever happening. Importantly her friend, Ms. Keyser, has not only denied knowledge of the party, Ms. Keyser said under penalty of felony she does not know me, does not recall ever being at a party with me ever and my two male friends who were allegedly there, who knew me well, have told this committee 3:30:08 PM under penalty of felony that they do not recall any such party and that I never did or would do anything like this. Dr. Ford's allegation is not merely uncorroborated, it is refuted by the very people she says were there, including by a long-time friend of hers. Refuted. Third, Dr. Ford has said that this event occurred at a house near Columbia country club, which is at the corner of Connecticut Avenue and the east/west highway in Chevy Chase, Maryland. In her letter to Senator Feinstein, she said there were four other people at the house, but none of those people nor I lived near Columbia country club. As of the summer of 1982, Dr. Ford was 15 and could not drive yet. And she did not live near Columbia Country Club. She says confidently that she had one beer at the party but she does 3:31:13 PM not say how she got to the house in question or how she got home or whose house it was. Fourth, I've submitted to this committee detailed calendars recording my activities in the summer of 1982. Why did I keep calendars? My dad started keeping detailed calendars of his life in 1978. He did so as both a calendar and a diary. He was a very organized guy to put it mildly. 3:32:14 PM Christmas time we sit around and he would regale us with old stories, milestones, old wed willings, old events from his calendars. In ninth grade -- in ninth grade in 1980 I started keeping calendars of my own, for me also it's both a calendar and a diary. I've kept such calendars and diaries for the last 38 years. Mine are not as good as my dad's in some years and when I was a kid, the calendars are about what you would expect from a kid, some goofy parts, some embarrassing parts, but I did have the summer of 1982 3:33:15 PM documented pretty well. The event described by Dr. Ford presumably happened on a weekend because I believe everyone worked and had jobs in the Summers. And in any event, a drunken early evening event of the kind she describes presumably happened on a weekend. If it was a weekend, my calendars show that I was out of town almost every weekend night before football training camp started in late August. The only weekend nights that I was in D.C. were Friday, June 4, when I was with my dad at a pro golf tournament. And had my high school achievement test at 8:30 the next morning. I also was in D.C. On Saturday 3:34:16 PM night August 7th, but I was at a small gathering at Becky's house in rockville with Matt, Denise, Lori and Jenny. Their names are all listed on my calendar. I won't use their last names here. And then on the weekend of August 20 to 22nd, I was staying at the Garrett's with Pat and Chris as we did final preparations for football training camp that began on Sunday the 22nd. As the calendars confirm, that weekend before a brutal football training camp schedule was no time for parties. So let me emphasize this point. If the party described by Dr. Ford happened in the summer of 1982 on a weekend night, my calendar shows all but definitively that I was not there. During the weekdays in the 3:35:16 PM summer of 1982, as you can see, I was out of town for two weeks of the summer for a trip to the beach with friends and at the legendary five-star basketball camp in Holmesdale, Pennsylvania. When I was in town, I spent much of my time working, working out, lifting weights, playing basketball or hanging out and having some beers with friends as we talked about life and football and school and girls. Some have noticed that I didn't have church on Sundays on my calendars. I also didn't list brushing my teeth, and for me, going to church on Sundays was like brushing my teeth, automatic. Still is. In the summer of 1981 I had worked construction. 3:36:16 PM In the summer of 1982 my job was cutting lawns. I had my own business of sorts. You see some specifics about the lawn cutting listed on the August calendar page when I had to time the last lawn cuttings of the summer of various lawns before football training camp. I played in a lot of summer league basketball games for the Georgetown prep team at night at Blair high school in silver spring many nights I worked out with other guys at Tobin's house. He was the great quarterback on our football team, and his dad ran workouts. Or lifted weight at Georgetown prep in preparation for the football season. I attended and watched many 3:37:17 PM sporting events, as is my habit to this day. The calendar shows a few gatherings at friends but none of those gatherings include the group of people Dr. Ford has I've had. As my calendars show, I was very precise about listing who was there, very precise. Keep in mind my calendars also were diaries of sorts, forward looking and backward looking, just like my dad's. You can see, for example, I crossed O missed workouts and the cancelled doctor appointments and that I listed the precise people who had shown up for certain events. The calendars are obviously not dispositive on their own, but they are another piece of evidence in the mix for you to consider. 3:38:10 PM >> Fifth, Dr. Ford's allegation is radically inconsistent with my record and my character from my youth to the present day. As students at an all-boys catholic jesuit school, many of us became friends and remain friends to this day with students at local catholic all-girls schools. One feature of my life that has remained true to the present day is that I've always had a lot of close female friends. I'm not talking about girl friends. I'm talking about friends who are women. That started in high school. Maybe it was because I'm an only child and had no sisters. But anyway, we had no social media or text or e-mail and we talked on the phone. I remember talking almost every night it seems to my friends Amy 3:39:23 PM or Julie or Kristen or Karen or Suzanne or Mora or Megan or Nikki. The list goes on. Friends for a lifetime built on a foundation of talking through school and life starting at age 14. Several of those great women are in the seats right behind me my friends and I sometimes got together and had parties on weekends. The drinking age was 18 in Maryland for most of my time in high school and was 18 in D.C. for all of my time in high school. I drank beer with my friends. Almost everyone did. sometimes I had too many beers. Sometimes others did. I liked beer. I still like beer. But I did not drink beer to the point of blacking out, and I never sexual assaulted anyone. 3:40:26 PM There is a bright line between drinking beer, which I gladly do and which I fully embrace, and sexual assaulting someone, which is a violent crime. If every American who drinks beer or every American who drank beer in high school is suddenly presumed guilty of sexual assault, it will be an ugly new place in this country. I never committed sexual assault. As high school students, we sometimes did goofy or stupid things. I doubt we're alone in looking back at high school and cringing at some things. For one thing, our year book was a disaster. I think some editors and students wanted the year book to be some combination of "Animal House", Caddie Shack" and "Fast times at Ridgemont High," which 3:41:25 PM were all movies in that time. Many of us went along with the year books at times to the point of absurdity. This past week my friends and I have cringed when we read about it and talked to each other. One thing in particular we were sad about, one of our good -- one of our good female friends who we would admire and went to 3:42:37 PM dances with had her name used on n the yearbook page with the term alumnus. But in this circus, the media has determined the team was related to sex. It was not related to sex. She and I never had any sexual interaction at all. So sorry to her for that year book reference. This may sound a bit trivial given all that we are here for, but one thing I want to try to make sure of in the future is my friendship with her. She was and is a great person. As to sex, this is not a topic I 3:43:35 PM er imagined would come up at a judicial confirmation hearing. But I want to give a full picture of who I was. I never had sexual intercourse or anything clo to it during high school or for many years after that. In some crowds I was probably a little outwardly shy about my inexperience. I tried to hide that. At the same time I was also inwardly proud of it. For me and the girls who I was friends with, that lack of major or rampant sexual activity in high school was a matter of faith and respect and caution. The committee has a letter from 65 women who knew me in high school. They said that I always treated 3:44:35 PM them with dignity and respect. That letter came together in one night 35 years after graduation while a sexual assault allegation was pending against me in a very fraught and public situation where they knew -- they knew they'd be vilified if they defended me. Think about that. They put themselves on the line for me. Those are some awesome women and I love all of them. You also have a letter from women who knew me in college. Most were varsity athletes. They described that I treated them as friends and equals and supported them in their sports at a time when women's sports 3:45:37 PM was emerging in the wake of title 9. I thank all of them for all of their texts and their e-mails and their support. One of those women friends from college, a self-described liberal and feminist sent me a text last night that said, quote, "deep breaths, you're a good man, a good man, a good man." A text yesterday from another one of those good women friends from college that said, quote, "Brett be strong, pulling for you from my core." A third text yesterday from yet another of those women I'm friends with from college said, "I'm holding you in the light of God. 3:46:40 PM As I said in my opening statement the last time I was with you, cherish your friends, look out for your friends, lift up your friends, love your friends. I felt that love more over the last two weeks than I ever have in my life. I thank all my friends. I love all my friends. Throughout my life I've devoted huge efforts to encouraging and promoting the careers of women. I will put my record up against anyone's, male or female. I am proud of the letter from 84 women. 84 women who worked with me at the bush White House from 2001 to 2006 and described me as, quote, "a man of the highest integrity." Read the op-ed from Sarah Day from Yarmouth, Maine. 3:47:39 PM She worked in Oval Office Operations outside of President Bush's office. Here's what she recently wrote in centralmaine.com and today she stands by her comments. Quote, "Brett was an advocate for young women like me. He encouraged me to take on more responsibility and to feel confident in my role. In fact, during the 2004 Republican National Convention, Brett gave me the opportunity to help with the preparation and review of the President's remarks, something I never -- something I never would have had the chance to do if he had not included me. And he didn't just include me in the work, he made sure I was at Madison Square garden to watch the President's speech instead of back at the hotel to watch it on TV." end quote. 3:48:39 PM As a judge since 2006, I've had the privilege of hiring four recent law school graduates to serve as my law clerks each year. The law clerks for federal judges are the best and brightest graduates of American law schools. They work for one-year terms for judges after law school and then they move on in their careers. For judges, training these young lawyers is an important responsibility. The clerks will become the next generation of American lawyers and leaders, judges and senators. Just after I took the bench in 2006, there was a major "New York Times" story about the low number of women law clerks at the supreme court and Federal appeals courts. I took notice and I took action. A majority of my 48 law clerks over the last 12 years have been 3:49:41 PM women. In a letter to this committee, my women law clerks said I was one of the strongest advocates in the Federal Judiciary for women lawyers. They wrote that the legal profession is fairer and more equal because of me. In my time on the bench, no federal judge, not a single one in the country, has sent more women law clerks to clerk on the supreme court than I have. Before this allegation arose two weeks ago, I was required to start making certain administrative preparations for my possible transfer to the supreme court, just in case I was confirmed. As part of that I had to, in essence, contingently hire a first group of four law clerks who could be available to clerk at the supreme court for me on a moment's notice. I did so and contingently hired 3:50:44 PM four law clerks. All four are women. If confirmed, I'll be the first justice in the history of the Supreme Court to have a group of all women law clerks. That is who I am. That is who I was. Over the past 12 years I've taught constitutional law to hundreds of students, primarily at Harvard law school. I was hired by then Dean and now Justice Elana Kagan. One of my former women students, a Democrat, testified to this committee that I was an even-handed professor who treats people fairly and with respect. In a letter to this committee, my former students, male and female alike, wrote that I displayed a character that impressed us all. I love teaching law, but thanks 3:51:46 PM to what some of you on this side of the committee have unleashed, I may never be able to teach again. For the past seven years I've coached my two daughters' basketball teams. You saw many of those girls when they came to my hearing for a couple of hours. You have a letter from the parents of the girls I coached that describe my dedication, commitment and character. I coach because I know that a girls' confidence on the basketball court translates into confidence in other aspects of life. I love coaching more than anything I've ever done in my whole life, but thanks to what some of you on this side of the committee have unleashed, I may never be able to coach again. 3:52:48 PM I've been a judge for 12 years. I have a long record of service to America and to the constitution. I revere the constitution. I am deeply grateful to President Trump for nominating me. He was so gracious to my family and me on the July night he announced my nomination at the White House. I thank him for his steadfast support. When I accepted the President's nomination, Ashley and I knew this process would be challenging. We never expected that it would devolve into this. Explaining this to our daughters has been about the worst experience of our lives. Ashley has been a rock. I thank god every day for Ashley and my family. 3:53:53 PM We live in a country devoted to due process and the rule of law. That means taking allegations seriously, but if the mere allegation, the mere assertion of an allegation, a refuted allegation from 36 years ago is enough to destroy a person's life and career, we will have abandoned the basic principles of fairness and due process that define our legal system and our country. I ask you to judge me by the standard that you would want applied to your father, your husband, your brother or your son. My family and I intend no ill 3:54:50 PM will towards Dr. Ford or her family. And I swear today under oath before the Senate and the Nation, before my family and god, I am innocent of this charge. Sen. Grassley >> Thank you, Judge Kavanaugh. Before we start questions, I won't repeat what I said this morning, but we'll do it the same way as we did for Dr. Ford in five-minute rounds, and so we will start with Ms. Mitchell. Rachel Mitchell >> Good afternoon, judge Kavanaugh. We have not met. My name is Rachel Mitchell. I would like to go over a couple of guidelines for our question and answer session today. If I ask a question -- 3:55:57 PM Kavanaugh >> Yeah, I'm ready. Rachel Mitchell >> Okay. Rachel Mitchell >> Thank you. Rachel Mitchell >> If I ask a question -- If I ask a question that you do not understand, please ask me to clarify it or ask it in a different way. I may ask a question where I incorporate some information you've already provided. If I get it wrong, please correct me. I'm not going to ask you to guess. If you do estimate, please let me know you're estimating. I want to make sure that all of the committee members have gotten a copy of the definition of sexual behavior. Sen. Grassley >> Yes. At least I have one. >> I don't. >> We all do. Rachel Mitchell >> And you have that as well? Judge Kavanaugh? Kavanaugh >> Yeah. Rachel Mitchell >> Okay. First of all, have you been given or reviewed a copy of the questions that I will be asking you? Kavanaugh >> No. Rachel Mitchell >> Has anyone told you the questions that I will be asking you? Kavanaugh >> No. Rachel Mitchell >> I want you to take a moment to review the definition that's before you of sexual 3:56:55 PM behavior. Have you had a chance to review it? Kavanaugh >> I have. I may refer back to it if I can. Rachel Mitchell >> Yes, please. I would like to point out two specific parts. Among the examples of sexual behavior, it includes rubbing or grinding your genitals against somebody clothed or unclothed, and I would also point out that the definition applies whether or not the acts were sexually motivated objection for example, horse play. Do you understand the definition I've given you? Kavanaugh >> I do. Rachel Mitchell >> And, again, if at any time you need to review that, please -- please let me know. Dr. Ford has stated that somewhere between five or six people were present at the gathering on this date. You, Mark Judge, Leland Ingham or the time or Leland Keyser now, Patrick P.J. Smith, 3:58:27 PM Dr. Ford and an unnamed boy. Do you know Mark Judge? Kavanaugh >> I do. Rachel Mitchell >> How do you know him? Kavanaugh >> He was a friend at Georgetown Prep starting in ninth grade. He's a -- uh.. someone in our, you know, group of friends. We were a very friendly group in class. You saw the letter that's been sent by my friends from Georgetown Prep. Funny guy. Great writer. Popular. Developed a serious addiction problem that lasted decades, near death a couple of times from his addiction, suffered tremendously from -- Rachel Mitchell >> What is your relationship with him like now? 3:59:29 PM Kavanaugh >> I haven't talked to him in a couple of years. We've probably been on mass e-mails or group e-mails that go around among my high school friends. Rachel Mitchell >> Okay. And how did you know Patrick Smith? Kavanaugh >> Also ninth grade. Georgetown Prep. Went by P.J. Then. He and I lived close to one another, played football together. He was defensive tackle. I was a cornerback and receiver. We carpooled to school along with D. Davis. Every year, the three of us for two years. I didn't have a car. So one of the two of them would drive every day, and I would be in -- you know, they would pick me up. Rachel Mitchell >> What's your relationship like with him now? >> He lives in the area. I see him once in a while. I haven't seen him since this -- this thing. Rachel Mitchell >> Okay. Kavanaugh >> Do you know Leland Ingham or 4:00:31 PM Rachel Mitchell Leland Keyser? Kavanaugh >> I know of her. It's possible I, you know, saw or met her in high school at some point at some event Yeah I know her -- I know of her, and, again, I don't want to rule out having crossed paths with 4:00:48 PM her in high school. Rachel Mitchell >> Similar to your statements about knowing Dr. Ford? Kavanaugh >> Correct. Rachel Mitchell >> Okay. Sen. Grassley >> Senator Feinstein. Sen. Feinstein >> Judge Kavanaugh, it's my understanding that you have denied the allegations by Dr. Ford, Ms. Ramirez and Ms. Swetnick, is that correct? Kavanaugh >> Yes. Sen. Feinstein >> All three of these women have asked the FBI to investigate their claims. I listened carefully to what you said. Your concern is evident and clear, and if you're very confident of your position and you appear to be, why aren't you also asking the FBI to investigate these claims. Kavanaugh >> Senator, I'll do whatever the committee wants. I wanted a hearing the day after the allegation came up. I wanted to be here that day. 4:01:50 PM Instead, ten days passed where all this nonsense is coming out, you know, that I'm in gangs, I'm boats in Rhode Island. I'm in Colorado, you know, I'm cited all over the place, and these things are printed and run breathlessly by cable news. You know, I wanted a hearing the next day. My family's been destroyed by this, senator. Destroyed. >> And I'm -- and -- Kavanaugh >> And whoever wants -- whatever the committee decides, you know. I'm -- I'm all in. Sen. Feinstein The question is -- Kavanaugh Immediately. I'm all in immediately. Sen. Feinstein >> And the terrible and hard part of this is when we get an allegation we're not in a position to prove it or disprove it. Therefore, we have to depend on some outside authority for it. And it would just seem to me then when these allegations came forward that you would want the FBI to investigate those claims 4:02:51 PM and clear it up once and for all. Kavanaugh >> Senator, the committee investigates. It's not for me to say how to do it. But just so you know, the FBI doesn't reach a conclusion. They would give you a couple 302s that just tell you what we said. So I'm here. I wanted to be -- I wanted to be here the next day. It's an outrage that I was not allowed to come and immediately defend my name and say I didn't do this and give you all this evidence. I'm not even -- I'm not even in D.C. On the weekends in the summer of 1982. This happened on a weekday, I'm not at high school for a summer league game -- I'm not at Tobin's house working out, not at a movie with Suzanne. You know I wanted to be here right away. Sen. Feinstein >> Well, the difficult thing is -- these -- these hearings 4:03:49 PM are set and -- set by the majority, but I'm talking about getting the evidence and having the evidence looked at and I don't understand, you know, we hear from the witnesses, but the FBI isn't interviewing them and isn't giving us any facts, so all we have -- Kavanaugh >> You're interviewing me. You're interviewing me. You're doing it, senator. I'm sorry to interrupt. But you're doing it. There's no conclusions reached. Sen. Feinstein >> And what you're saying if I understand it is that the allegations by Dr. Ford, Ms. Ramirez and Ms. Swetnick are wrong. Kavanaugh >> That is -- that is emphatically what I'm saying, emphatically. The Swetnick thing is a joke. 4:04:48 PM That is a farce. Sen. Feinstein >> Would you like to say more about it? Kavanaugh >> No. Sen. Feinstein >> Okay. >> That's it, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sen. Grassley >> Miss Mitchell. Rachel Mitchell >> Dr. Ford has described you as being intoxicated at a party. Did you consume alcohol during your high school years? Kavanaugh >> Yes, we drank beer. My friends and I, the boys and girls, yes, we drank beer. I liked beer. I still like beer. We drank beer. The drinking age as I noted was 18 so the seniors were legal, senior year in high school people were legal to drink, and, yeah, we drank beer and I said sometimes -- sometimes probably had too many beers and sometimes other people had team beers. We drink beer. We liked beer. Rachel Mitchell >> What do you consider to be too many beers? Kavanaugh >> I don't know. You know, we -- whatever the 4:05:50 PM chart says, blood-alcohol chart. Rachel Mitchell >> When you talked to Fox News the other night you said that there were times in high school when people might have had too many beers on occasion. Does that include you? Kavanaugh >> Sure. Rachel Mitchell >> Okay. Have you ever passed out from drinking? Kavanaugh >> Passed out would be -- no, but I've gone to sleep, but I've never blacked out, that's the allegation and -- and that -- that's wrong. Rachel Mitchell >> So let's talk about your time in high school. In high school after drinking, did you ever wake up in a different location than you remembered passing out or going Kavanaugh >> No. No. Rachel Mitchell >> Did you ever wake up with your clothes in a different condition or fewer clothes on than you remembered when you went to sleep or passed out? Kavanaugh >> No, no. Rachel Mitchell >> Did you ever tell -- did 4:06:53 PM anyone ever tell you about something that happened in your presence that you didn't remember during a time that you had been drinking? Kavanaugh >> No. We drank beer and did I think the vast majority of our age at the time but in any event we drank beer and -- and still do, so whatever -- yeah. Rachel Mitchell >> During the time in high school when you would be drinking, did anyone ever tell you about something that you did not remember? Kavanaugh >> No. Rachel Mitchell >> Dr. Ford described a small gathering of people at a suburban Maryland home in the summer of 1982. She said that Mark Judge, P.J. Smith and Leland Ingham also were present as well as an unknown male and that the people were drinking to varying 4:07:54 PM Degrees. Were you ever at a gathering that fits that description? Kavanaugh >> No, as I've said in my opening statements, opening statement. Rachel Mitchell >> Dr. Ford described an incident where she was alone in a room with you and Mark Judge. Have you ever been alone in a room with Dr. Ford and Mark Judge? Kavanaugh >> No. Rachel Mitchell >> Dr. Ford described an incident where you were grinding your genitals on her. Have you ever ground or rubbed your genitals against Dr. Ford? Kavanaugh >> No. Rachel Mitchell >> Dr. Ford described an incident where you covered her mouth with your hand. Have you ever covered Dr. Ford's mouth with your hand? Kavanaugh >> No. Rachel Mitchell >> Dr. Ford described an incident where you tried to remove her clothes. Have you ever tried to remove her clothes? Kavanaugh >> No. Rachel Mitchell >> Referring back to the definition of sexual behavior that I have given you, have you ever at any time engaged in sexual behavior with Dr. Ford? Kavanaugh >> No. Rachel Mitchell >> Have you ever engaged in 4:08:55 PM sexual behavior with Dr. Ford, even if it was consensual? Kavanaugh >> No. Rachel Mitchell >> I want to talk about your calendars. You submitted to the committee copies of the written calendars that you've talked about for the months of may, June, July and August of 1982. Do you have them in front of you? Kavanaugh >> I do. Rachel Mitchell >> Did you create these calendars in the sense of all the handwriting that's on them? Kavanaugh >> Yes. Rachel Mitchell >> Is it exclusively your handwriting? Kavanaugh >> Yes. Rachel Mitchell >>When did you make these entries? Kavanaugh >> In 1982. Rachel Mitchell >> Has anything changed -- been changed for those since 1982? Kavanaugh >> No. Rachel Mitchell >> Do these calendars represent your plans for each day, or do they document, in other words, prospectively. Kavanaugh >> Right. Rachel Mitchell >> Or do they document what actually occurred more like a diary? 4:09:57 PM Kavanaugh >> They are both forward looking and backward looking. As you can tell by looking at them, because I cross out certain doctor's appointments that didn't happen or one night where I was supposed to lift weights, I crossed that out because I obviously didn't make it that night, so you can see things that I didn't do. I crossed out in retrospect, and also when I list the specific people who I was with, that is likely backward looking. Rachel Mitchell >> You explained that you kept these calendars because your father started keeping them in 1978, I believe you said. Kavanaugh >> Mm-hmm. Rachel Mitchell >> That's why you kept them, in other words, you wrote on them, but why did you keep them up until this time? Kavanaugh >> Well, he's kept them, too, since 1978, so I -- he's a good role model. Sen. Grassley >> Miss Mitchell. You'll have to stop. Rachel Mitchell >> Oh, I'm sorry. Sen. Grassley >> Judge Kavanaugh has asked for a break so we'll take a a 15-minute break.

Ashley Madison dating website hacked; ENGLAND: London: Soho: EXT 'Sex and Misch' product displyed in shop window Illuminated Sex Shop sign/ Jo Hemmings (Behavioural Psychologist) interview SOT

<p><b>--SUPERS</b>--</p>\n<p>Monday</p>\n<p>Harrisonburg, VA</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>Ashley Riha</p>\n<p>Clinical Supervisor & Occupational Therapist | James Madison University</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--SOT</b>--</p>\n<p>"Kids come up to the door and maybe they are a little bit older or if they don't say trick or treat or don't make eye contact, those things may be difficult for them. /// If you see a kid who maybe is grabbing too much candy, a lot of our kids have difficulty with that fine motor control."</p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>-----END-----</b></p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--KEYWORD TAGS--</b></p>\n<p>VIRGINIA HALLOWEEN KIDS TRICK OR TREATING</p>

Ashley Madison dating website hacked; Professor Peter Sommer LIVE STUDIO interview SOT

1145 SEN JUDICIARY KAVANAUGH SCOTUS HRG CMTE FS1 89 UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HEARING: Nomination of the Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Full Committee DATE: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 TIME: 09:30 AM LOCATION: Hart Senate Office Building 216 PRESIDING: Chairman Charles Grassley MEMBER STATEMENTS: Senator Chuck Grassley (R - IA) Senator Dianne Feinstein (D - CA) Senator Patrick Leahy (D - VT) Senator Dick Durbin (D - IL) Senator Amy Klobuchar (D - MN) Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D - RI) Senator Christopher A. Coons (D - DE) Senator Richard Blumenthal (D - CT) Senator Mazie Hirono (D - HI) Senator Kamala Harris (D - CA) WITNESSES: INTRODUCERS The Honorable Condoleezza Rice Former Secretary of State Senior Fellow at Hoover Institution Professor at Stanford University Stanford, CA The Honorable Rob Portman United States Senator State of Ohio Ms. Lisa S. Blatt Partner Arnold & Porter Washington, DC PANEL I The Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh PANEL II Mr. Paul T. Moxley Chair American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary Salt lake City, UT Mr. John R. Tarpley Principal Evaluator American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary Nashville, TN PANEL III MINORITY Mr. Luke McCloud Former Law Clerk Associate Williams & Connolly LLP Washington, DC Ms. Louisa Garry Teacher Friends Academy Locust Valley, NY The Honorable Theodore B. Olson Partner Gibson Dunn & Crutcher Former Solicitor General United States Department of Justice Washington, DC Ms. Colleen E. Roh Sinzdak Former Student Senior Associate Hogan Lovells LLP Washington, DC Professor Akhil Amar Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science Yale Law School New Haven, CT The Honorable Cedric Richmond U.S. Representative, Louisiana, 2nd District Chairman, Congressional Black Caucus Ms. Rochelle Garza Managing Attorney Garza & Garza Law Brownsville, TX Ms. Elizabeth Weintraub Advocacy Specialist Association of University Centers on Disabilities Silver Spring, MD Ms. Alicia Baker Indianapolis, IN Professor Melissa Murray Professor of Law New York University School of Law New York, NY PANEL IV MAJORITY Mr. A.J. Kramer Federal Public Defender Office of the Federal Public Defender for the District of Columbia Washington, DC Ms. Rebecca Taibleson Former Law Clerk Assistant U.S. Attorney Eastern District of Wisconsin Foxpoint, WI Ms. Maureen E. Mahoney Former Deputy Solicitor General of the United States Washington, DC Mr. Kenneth Christmas Executive Vice President, Business & Legal Affairs Marvista Entertainment Los Angeles, CA Ms. Aalayah Eastmond Parkland, FL Mr. Jackson Corbin Hanover, PA Mr. Hunter Lachance Kennebunk, ME Ms. Melissa Smith Social Studies Teacher U.S. Grant Public High School Oklahoma City, OK PANEL V MAJORITY: Ms. Monica Mastal Real Estate Agent Washington, DC The Honorable Paul Clement Partner Kirkland & Ellis LLP Former Solicitor General United States Department of Justice Washington, DC MINORITY: Professor Adam White Executive Director The C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State Antonin Scalia Law School George Mason University Arlington, VA Professor Jennifer Mascott Former Law Clerk Assistant Professor of Law Antonin Scalia Law School George Mason University Arlington, VA Mr. John Dean Former Counsel to the President President Richard M. Nixon Professor Rebecca Ingber Associate Professor of Law Boston University School of Law Boston, MA Professor Lisa Heinzerling Justice William J. Brennan Jr. Professor of Law Georgetown University Law Center Washington, DC Professor Peter Shane Professor Law Moritz College of Law Ohio State University Columbus, OH 11:45:14 AM his outstanding records so many our colleagues across the aisle have announced their opposition even before he was nominated. The level of disingenuousness and hyperbole even by today's standards is extraordinary. Members from the other side of the aisle including some who serve on this committee have claimed that confirming judge Kavanaugh would somehow be complicit in evil and the result in the destruction of the constitution. Some have even claimed that you testified falsely. We've already heard that alluded to before the committee when you were serving our country in the bush white house. I hope you'll have a chance to explain the apparent misunderstanding on the part of some senators. And I sincerely hope this week we can all take a deep breath. We're not doing very well so far and get a grip and treat this process with the respect and 11:46:17 AM gravity it demands. The American bar association which some have called the gold standard for judicial evaluations have unanimously rated you as well-qualified for service on the supreme court and as we've heard a number of lawyers and judges across the spectrum have talked about your qualifications and sung your praises and I'm confident at the end of this hearing your stellar credentials and body of work as a judge will demonstrate that you properly understand the role of a judge under the constitution and I'm confident you will demonstrate that you will faithfully and fairly interpret the text of the law and the constitution and dutifully apply them to the disputes that come before you. I expect we'll have a conversation or two about this book which you contributed to and the law of judicial precedent because I know that there's a number of questions by members of the senate about how you will regard previously 11:47:17 AM decided cases in the supreme court and I trust you'll give us a scholarly and detailed explanation of that and demonstrate that many of the concerns expressed about the new justice coming on the court somehow wiping away previous decisions single handily not even with the help of other members of the court is just plain ridiculous and we look forward to asking those questions and getting your answer. Thank you very much. GRASSLEY >> Senator Durbin? DURBIN >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Judge Kavanaugh, it's good to see you again. I thank the members of your family who are weathering this hearing. Thank you very much for being here today. This is a different hearing for the supreme court than I've ever been through. It's different in what's happened in this room just this morning. What we've heard is the noise of democracy. This is what happens in a free country when people can stand up and speak and not be jailed, 11:48:20 AM imprisoned, tortured or killed because of it. It is not mob rule. There have been times when it is uncomfortable, I'm sure it was for your children. I hope you can explain this to them at some point, but it does represent what we are about in this democracy. Why is this happening for the first time in the history of this committee? I think we need to be honest about why its happening. I think its the same reason why when I go home to Illinois after being in this public service job for over 30 years I hear a question that I've never ever heard before repeatedly as people pull me off to the side and say, senator, are we going to be all right? Is America going to be all right? They're genuinely concerned about the future of this country. You come to this moment of history in a rare situation. You are aspiring to be the most decisive vote on the supreme 11:49:21 AM court on critical issues, justice Kennedy did that for 12 years and you are called to that responsibility and we realize the gravity of that opportunity and that responsibility. Secondly, of course, your record and the statements of others suggest there's real genuine concern about changing life and death values in this country because you see things differently. We've heard that over and over again and I think you must understand the depth of feeling about that possibility and third, try as they might, I'm afraid the majority just can't get beyond the fact that there are parts of your public life that they want to conceal. They don't want America to see them. I think that's a serious mistake and I'm going to I think that's a serious mistake, and I'm going to make a suggestion at the end of my remarks. Over and above all those things 11:50:22 AM are this. You are the nominee of president Donald John trump. This is a president who's shown us consistently he's contemptuous of the rule of law. He's said and done things as president which we've never seen before in history. He dismissed the head of the FBI when he wouldn't bend to his will. He harasses his attorney general on almost a daily basis in the exercise of his office, and I didn't vote for Jeff sessions, but I have to tell you there should be some respect at least for the office he serves in. And it's that president who's decided you are his man. You're the person he wants on the supreme court. You are his personal choice. So are people nervous about this? Are they concerned about it? Of course they are. I'm sure there will be a shower of tweets sometime later in the day. Harassing people on the cabinet, people in the white house, maybe dismissing them. And maybe he'll go after me 11:51:22 AM again. Be my guest. But the point I'm getting to is if you wonder why this reaction is taking place, because what's happening in this country, there are many of us concerned about the future of this country and the future of democracy. And you are asking for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land where you will make decisions, the deciding vote on things that'll decide the course of history and where we are headed. The senate has a constitutional responsibility to evaluate your nomination. We do know that before you became a judge, you were faithfully advancing the Republican party agenda. I jokingly said in one of your previous appearances that you're like the forest gump of Republican politics. You always show up in the picture. Whether it's the Ken Starr investigation, bush versus gore, the bush white house, you've been there. We also know that before naming you, president trump made it clear that he would appoint justices, only appoint justices 11:52:23 AM to the supreme court who would overturn roe versus wade and the affordable care act. Those were his litmus tests. Now, he didn't ask the question. What he did was to delegate this responsibility to two special interest groups, the federalist society and the heritage foundation. The other groups that are spending millions of dollars in support of your candidacy, they're confident you're going to favor the interest of corporations over workers and give the president wide berth when it comes to executive authority. And your own law clerks, men and women you chose, men and women who wrote the words that had your signature at the bottom of the page, have told us what they think of you. One wrote in an article entitled, quote, Brett Kavanaugh said Obamacare was unprecedented, unlawful. That's from one of your clerks. Another wrote, when it comes to, quote, enforcing restrictions on abortion, no court of appeals judge in the nation has a stronger, more consistent record than judge Brett Kavanaugh. Big corporate interests solidly behind your nomination, chamber 11:53:23 AM of commerce, full support, and president trump, whose lawyers say they will fight any effort to subpoena or indict him all the way to the supreme court, that president seems personally eager to have you confirmed as quickly as possible. Why are your supporters so confident you'll rule on these issues as they wish? Why do they think you're such a sure bet to take their side? In the words of one of your former clerks, this is no time for a gamble. Unfortunately, I don't think you're going to tell us much this week. It's interesting to me that people in your position write all these law review articles, make all these speeches, and come to this room and clam up. Don't want to talk about any issues, but that's what I expect. Instead, we'll be asked to trust that if you're confirmed, you'll have an open mind, that you'll follow the law, rather than move the law in the direction of your views. I'd like to trust you, but I agree with president Ronald Reagan. Trust but verify. I wanted to trust you the last time you testified before this 11:54:23 AM committee in 2006, but after you were confirmed to the D.C. Circuit, reports surfaced that contradicted your sworn testimony before this committee. You said to me unambiguously under oath the following, I was not involved and am not involved in the questions about the rules governing detention of combatants. But later, just a week or so ago, you acknowledged to my office you were involved. For 12 years, you could have apologized and corrected this record, but you never did. Instead, you and your supporters have argued we should ignore that simple declarative sentence which you spoke and how conclude your words mean something far different. You are committed textualist, judge Kavanaugh. If you're going to hold others accountable for their words, you should be held accountable for your own word. After my personal experience, I start these hearings with a question about your credibility as a witness. I know from my history with you the things you said need to be carefully verified. That brings us to a major 11:56:26 AM passed. The bush administration did everything in its power to stop John McCain's torture amendment. Then after we passed it 90-9, a veto-proof margin, president bush issued a signing statement asserting his right to ignore the law that John McCain had just passed in congress. When we met in my office, you acknowledged you worked on that signing statement. Yet, we've been denied any documents disclosing your role or your advice to president bush. I asked you if you wrote, edited, or approved documents. Time and again you said, I can't rule it out. Judge Kavanaugh, America needs to see those documents. We cannot carefully review, advise, and decide whether to consent to your nomination without clarity on the record. The period of time when you worked in the Republican white house led to a change in position on an issue which we have to address directly. Your views on executive power and accountability have changed dramatically. 11:57:27 AM When you worked for special counsel Ken Starr in the late 1990s, you called him, quote, an American hero for investigating president Bill Clinton. And you personally urged Starr to be aggressive, confrontational, and even graphic in his questions. We've seen your memo on that one. But a few years later after working in the Republican white house, you totally reversed your position and argued the president should be above the law and granted a free pass from investigation while in office. What did you see in that bush white house that dramatically changed your view? What are your views about presidential accountability today? Judge Kavanaugh, at this moment in our nation's history with authoritarian forces threatening our democracy, with the campaign and administration of this president under federal criminal investigation, we need a direct credible answer from you. Is this president or any president above the law? Equally important, can this president ignore the constitution and the exercise of 11:58:28 AM his authority? You dissented in the seven sky case when the D.C. Circuit upheld the affordable care act's constitutionality. You criticized the law, a law this president has said many times he wants to ignore and abolish. You said, quote, the president may decline to enforce a statute that regulates private individuals when the president deems -- when the president deems the statute unconstitutional, even if a court has held or would hold the statute constitutional. This statement by you flies in the face. It gives license to this president, Donald John trump, or any president who chooses to ignore the constitution, to assert authority far beyond that envisioned by our founding fathers. There are many people who are watching carefully. I'm going to make a suggestion to you today, and it won't be popular on either side of the aisle. If you believe that your public record is one that you can stand behind and defend, I hope that 11:59:30 AM at the end of this, you will ask this committee to suspend until we are given all the documents, until we have the time to review them. And then we resume this hearing. What I'm saying to you is basically this. If you will trust the American people, they will trust you. But if your effort today continues to conceal and hide documents, it raises a suspicion. I'll close, Mr. Chairman. I know you're anxious. When I was a practicing lawyer a long time ago in trial, and the other side either destroyed or concealed evidence, I knew that I was going to be able to have a convincing argument to close that case. What were they hiding? Why won't they let you see a speed tape on that train or the documents they just can't find? You know that presumption now is against you because of all the documents held back. (12:00:15) For the sake of this nation, the sanctity of the constitution that we both honor, step up, ask this gathering to suspend until all the documents of your public career are there for the American people to see. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. SWITCH TO FOX CC MIKE LEE >> You might think you also, Ashley and Margaret and Eliza for being here. I'm going to start by saying, the fact that there is so much angst over a single nominee, a single judicial nominee tells you everything you need to know about why it is that we need judges now more than ever were willing to read the law and interpret based on what the law says based on the basis of something else. It also tells you more than anything else you could need to 12:01:17 PM know about the need to restore a discussion of civics in this country, to restore a discussion about federalism and separation of powers. Where power is concentrated and where it shouldn't be. What the role of each branch of the federal government is and is not. Many of the comments, many of the outburst we've had today suggest that we need to return to some of those fundamental principles that I don't care whether you liberal Democrat or a conservative Republican or something in between. These principles apply and principles that I think we would do well to restore and focus on once again. If ever to return to an air of civility, we will return to that era on the basis of those foundational structural principles within our constitution. Over the next few days, a few members of this committee are going to ask you a few questions on cases that you've handled as a lawyer, cases that you've 12:02:17 PM decided as a judge, about your record, about your qualifications. On that point about your record in your qualifications, this suggestion that you misled this committee at any point in your previous hearings is absurd and the absurdity of that suggestion will be brought out in the coming days, I am certain of it. Some of the questions that will be asked about you will in fact be fair and others will be unfair. I think it's important for us to acknowledge that at the outset. You look back at history, answering these kinds of questions, this is sort of how the practice of holding these hearings began so the senators could ask nominees how they might vote, how they might rule in particular cases. But this didn't always happen. In fact, it wasn't until 1916 that this even started. 12:03:20 PM There have been 113 justices confirmed to the supreme court so far, the first 66 were confirmed without even holding a hearing. The idea of a hearing is relatively new, about 102 years old, we went from between 125 and 135 years under a constitutional republic without ever a hearing but regardless, we started having hearings just over a century ago. The first supreme court nomination hearing occurred in 1960. Some called for hearing freedom if we are honest with ourselves, honest about history, I think a lot of this might have to do with some sentiment and that he was jewish. But they wanted to determine whether he would use his seat on the supreme court to advocate for some of the things that he had advocated for as a private 12:04:21 PM citizen, as a public interest attorney. They wanted to know how he might vote in particular cases. They didn't ask him to testify significantly, but they did in fact asked that Mike asked some outside witnesses what they thought about his nomination. The next important moment one could argue occurred in 1939 when Felix frankfurter became the first nominee to himself testify before the committee. He was controversial in part because he was born overseas but senators also worried that he was a radical based on his defense of anarchists in court. Again, senators wanted to share emphasis about how he might rule in particular cases and in particular, what results he might reach in a particular type of case. 12:05:21 PM He significantly declined to engage with senators on those topics and incentives that his public record spoke for itself. His nomination in 1959 was another turning point. Senators seeking to resist brown versus board of education, wanted to grill Stewart on his views on integration. Others still wanted to grill Stewart on his views on national security. So senators turned up the heat a little bit more in that hearing, like frankfurter before him, just a Stuart did not provide substantive answers to the questions. When they wanted to know how he might rule in particular cases, he appropriately declined. Just as his predecessors had. 28 years later, 28 years after justice Stewart came through this committee, the senate considered Robert bork's confirmation. In my view, it remains something 12:06:22 PM of a rock-bottom moment for the senate. Without getting into the gory details here, I think it suffices to say that senator Ted Kennedy and judge bork did not agree on certain matters of constitutional law. And Kennedy's response was to savage unfairly, in my opinion, the results that judge bork would reach if confirmed to the court. History shows over the better part of a century, they've gradually created something of a new norm, a norm in which nominees demand that they speak about specific cases in return for favorable treatment from the committee as a jurist are going through this process. Nominees for the most part have have gracefully resisted confirmation in exchange for promises about how they will vote in particular cases. To give two famous examples, justice Scalia refused to say whether marbury v. Madison was settled law on the ground it could come before him and sure enough in Ortiz visit united States, they implicated the scope of mar bury. Likewise, justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had no previews, no forecasts, no hints. Every current member of the supreme court has adhered to a similar principal of what we might call the Ginsburg standard. Even though nominees have not caved to the pressure, I still 12:08:14 PM believe that there is some aspects of the senate's approach here that might do it disservice to the country and might be frowned upon by future historians. If senators ask about outcomes, the public will be more sbiltsd or at least more inclined to think judges are supposed to be outcome mind and the whole approach is to judging and supposed to be what judging is about. This undermines the very legitimacy of the courts themselves. The injury legitimacy of the tribunal you have been nominated by the president to serve on. No free people would accept a judiciary that imposes its own policy preferences on the country, absent fidelity to legal principal. There is a better way for the senate to approach its work. This process, in my opinion, should be about your 12:09:15 PM qualifications about your character and most importantly about your approach to judging. Your own view about the role of the federal judiciary. It should not be about results in a select number of cases. Now, you are obviously exceptionally well qualified. Even your staunchest critics would not claim ourselves. Your experience as a practicing lawyer and your experience in government and 12 years of experience sitting on what many refer to as the second highest court in the land, the U.S. Cower of appeals for the D.C. Circuit. You are independent and have written that some of the greatest mosts in American judicial history have been when judges too up to the other branches. You said that judges cannot be buffaloed, influenced or pressured into worrying too much about transient popularity when we are trying to decide a case. 12:10:17 PM One of the most important duties of a judge is to stand up for the unpopular party who has the correct position. And you have lived up to your words during your time on the bench. Everyone knows that you served in the bush administration. And yet when you became a judge, in only two years, you ruled against the bush administration a total of eight times. For you it simply doesn't matter who the parties are. It simply doesn't matter that you may have worked for an administration before you became a judge. The only thing that matters is your commitment to correctly applying the law to the facts of any particular case. As far as your approach to judging, you have appropriate respect for precedent. You co authored an 800 page book that among other things explain 12:11:17 PM that is a change in a court's membership alone should not throw former decisions open to reconsideration or justify their reversal. You explained that for precedent to be overruled, it must not be just wrong, but a case with serious practical consequences. You voted to overturn circuit precedent only four times during your time on the D.C. Circuit and each of those cases involved a unanimous decision reached by your colleagues and you followed abiding precedent if you believed that binding precedent was wrongly decided. You decided cases based on legal merits and not the identity of the parties and certainly not based on any political beliefs that you may harbor. We have already heard that your nomination will somehow be bad for women, for the environment, 12:12:18 PM for labor unions, for civil rights and a host of other things that Americans hold near and dear. I have a laundry list of cases for which people in each of those groups, but there is a more fundamental point that needs to be made. The judiciary's decisions are legitimate. Only to the extent that they are based on sound legal principal and reasoning. And ruling for a preferred party is not itself a sound legal principal. It's quite to the contrary. Jury rigging decisions and backfilling legal reasoning to reach a particular result, a particularly politically acceptable result in a particular case. No matter how desirable that result might be in the instance is not a legitimate mode of judicial decision making and no free people purporting to have 12:13:18 PM an independent judiciary should ever be willing to settle for that. My plea to my colleagues today is we ask judge car gnaw hard questions. I believe we are required to do so. The senate is not and never should be a rubber stamp when it comes to issuing lifetime appointments, each lifetime appointments on the highest court in the land. If you disagree with an opinion he's written, make a legal argument as to that issue. Explain why you think it's wrong. Don't complain about the results. As if the result itself is proof that he's wrong when you separate out the result from the legal analysis. From the faxes and how they interact with the law in that particular case. Don't ask him to make promises about outcomes in particular cases. If it's unacceptable for the 12:14:19 PM president to impose a litmus test, it is surely unacceptable for the United States senate to do so. Judge Kavanaugh, I look forward to your testimony and I'm grateful to you and your willingness to serve our country and be considered for this important role. >> Senator Whitehouse. WHITEHOUSE >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When is pattern evidence of bias? In court, pattern is evidence of bias all the time. Evidence on which juries and trial judges rely to show discriminatory intent, to show a common scheme, to show bias. When does a pattern prove bias? I wish this were an idle 12:15:20 PM question. It's relevant to the pattern of the Roberts court when its Republican majority goes off on partisan excursions through the civil law. That is when all five Republican appointees, the Roberts five we can call them, go raiding off together and no democratic appointee joins them. Does this happen often? The Roberts five has gone on almost 80 of these partisan excursions since Roberts became chief. That's a lot of times. And there is a feature to these 80 cases. They almost all implicate interests important to the big funders and influencers of the Republican party. When the Republican justices go 12:16:21 PM off on these five justice partisan excursions, there is a big Republican corporate or partisan interest involved 92% of the time. The tiny handful of these cases that don't implicate an interest of the big Republican influencers is so flukishly few, we can set them aside. Let's look at the 73 cases that all implicate a major Republican party interest. Again, 73 is a lot of case at the supreme court. Is there a pattern to these 73 cases? Oh, yes, there is. Every time a big Republican corporate or partisan interest is involved, the big Republican interest wins. Every time. Let me repeat. In 73 partisan decisions where 12:17:23 PM there is a big Republican interest at stake, the big Republican interest wins, every damned time. Thus the mad scramble of big Republican interest groups to protect a Roberts five that will reliably give them wins. Really big wins sometimes. I note that when the Roberts five saddles up, these so-called conservatives are anything but judicially conservative. They readily overturn precedent, toss out statutes passed by wide bipartisan margins, and decide on broad constitutional issues that they need not reach. Modesty, originalism, stare decisis. All these principals all have 12:18:24 PM the hoof prints of the Roberts five all across their backs, wherever those principals got in the way of those wins for the big Republican interests. Be the litany of Roberts five decisions explains why big Republican interests want judge Kavanaugh on the court so badly. So badly that Republicans trampled so much senate precedent to push him through. So let's review the highlights real. What do big Republican interests want. What has the Roberts five delivered? Respect Republicans Jerry mapped -- gerrymandering elections. Help them keep minority voters away from the polls. Shelby county 5-4 and Bartlet V Stickland 12:19:24 PM and Abbott V Perez 5-4 despite the trial judge finding the Texas legislature actually intended to target and suppress minority voters. And the big one. Help corporate front group money flood elections. Big money interests love unlimited power to buy elections, lobby, and threaten and bully congress. McCutchen, 5-4 counting the concurrence. Bullock, 5-4, and the infamous 5-4 citizens united decision which I believe stands beside Lockner on the court's role of shame. What else do big influencers want? To get out of courtrooms. Big influencers hate courtrooms because they are lobbying and election earring and threatening doesn't work or at least it's not supposed to. In a courtroom, big influencers 12:20:25 PM are used to getting their way and have to suffer the indignity of equal treatment. So the Roberts five protects corporations from group class action lawsuits, Wal-Mart V Dukes, 5-4. Comcast, 5-4 and this past term epics systems, 5-4. The Roberts five steers customers and workers away from courtrooms and into mandatory arbitration. Conception. Italian colors and represent a center, all Roberts five. Epic systems does double duty because workers can't even arbitrate as a group. Hindering access to the courthouse generally. Protecting corporations from being taken to court by employees. Harmed through pay discrimination, Ledbetter 5-4. Age discrimination, 5-4. 12:21:27 PM Vance, 5-4 and retaliation Nassar, 5-4. From liability from international human rights violations, jessner, 5-4. Corporations are not in the constitution. Juries are. Juries are the one thing designed to protect against encroachments by private wealth and power. Of course the Roberts five rules for wealthy corporations over jury rights every time. With nerry a mention of the 7th amendment. A classic, helping big business bust unions. Harris V Quinn, 5-4 and Janice V affect me with a 40-year precedent. Lots of big influencers are polluters who like to pollute for free. The Roberts five delivers 12:22:31 PM decisions who let polluters pollute. 5-4. National association of home landlorders weakening for endangered species. 5-4. Michigan versus air polluters, if 5-4. There is the procedural abhorrent decision to stop the EPA clean power plan. Pattern. Then come Roberts five bonus decisions advancing a far right social agenda. Upholding and hobby lobby granting religious rights over the health care rights of employees. Letting states deny truthful information about reproductive choices. All 5-4, all Republican. Reanimating for the gun industry, a former chief justice called a fraud. Both decisions 5-4. Trump V Hawaii 5-4. 12:23:32 PM Hubber stamping the Muslim tramp ban. In case Wall Street was being left out, Janice capital, 5-4. Pattern. No wonder the American people feel the game is rigged. Here's how the game works. Big business fund the federalist society which picked Gorsuch and now you. As the white house counsel admitted, they insourced the federalist society for this selection. Exactly how the nominees were picked and who was in the room where it happened and who had a vote or a veto or promise, that's all a deep dark secret. Then dig business and part an groups fund the crisis network that runs dark money to influence senators in confirmation votes as they have done for Gorsuch and now for you. Who pays millions of dollars for that? What their expectations are is a 12:24:33 PM deep dark secret. These groups also fund Republican election campaigns with dark money and keep the identity of big donors a deep dark secret and 90% of your documents are to us, a deep dark secret. Then once the nominees on the court, the same groups with ties to the Koch brothers and the other political machine file friend of the court to signal their wishes to the Roberts five. Who was behind those friends is another deep dark secret. It has gotten so weird that Republican justices now even sent hints back to big business interests about how they would like to help them next and big business lawyers rush out to lose cases, to lose cases just to rush up before the friendly court pronto. That's what happened in the Fredericks Janice episode. 12:25:34 PM The U.S. Chamber of commerce is the biggest corporate lobby of them all. Big oil, big tobacco, big pharma, big guns. With justice Gorsuch riding with the Roberts five, they won nine out of 10 cases they weighed in on. Since 2006, they have given the chamber more than three quarters of their total votes N. All civil cases they voted for the chamber position fully 90% of the time and in these 5-4 cases I highlighted, 100%. People are noticing. They describe the court's service to Republican interests. Toobin wrote green house said the Republican appointed majority is committed to harnessing the supreme court to an ideological agenda. Ornstein described the new reality of today's supreme court 12:26:37 PM polarized along partisan lines where it paralyzes institutions and the rest of society in a fashion we have never seen. And the American public knows it, too. The American public thinks the supreme court treats corporations more favorably than individuals compared to vice-versa by a 7-1 margin. 49% of Americans think corporations get special treatment there. Let's look at where you fit in. A Republican political operative your whole career who never tried a case. You made your political bones helping the salacious prosecution of president Clinton and leaking information to the press. As an operative in the second bush white house, you cultivated relationships with insiders like nomination guru Leonard Leo, the federalist society architect of your court nominations. On the D.C. Circuit, you gave 12:27:38 PM more than 50 speeches to the federalist society. That looks like auditioning. On the D.C. Circuit, you showed readiness to join the Roberts with big political wins with Republican and corporate interests. Unleashing special interest money and protecting corporations from liability and helping polluters pollute and striking down common sense gun regulations and keeping plaintiffs out of court and perhaps more important for the current occupant of the oval office, expounding a nearly limitless vision of presidential immunity from the law. Your alignment with right wing groups as friends of the court, 91%. When big business trade associations weighed in, 76%. This to me is what corporate capture of the courts looks like. There are big expectations for you. The shadowy dark money front group that the network is spending tens of millions of 12:28:38 PM dark money to push for your confirmation, they clearly have big expectations about how you will rule on dark moan. The NRA poured millions into your confirmation, promising members that you will break the tide. They clearly have big expectations on how you will vote on guns. White house counsel don mcgahn admitted there is a coherent plan here where the judicial selection and the deregulatory effort are the flip side of the same point. Polluters have big expectations for you on their deregulatory effort. Finally, you come before us nominated by a president named in open court as directing criminal activity and a subject of ongoing criminal investigation. You displayed views on executive immunity from the law. If you are in that seat because the white house has big 12:29:39 PM expectations that you will protect the president from the due process of law, that should give every senator pause. Tomorrow we will hear a lot of confirmation etiquette. It is mostly a sham. You know the game. You coached judicial nominees to just tell senators that they have a commitment to follow supreme court precedent and they will adhere to statutory text that they have no ideological agenda, end quote. Fairy tales. At his hearing, justice Roberts said he just called balls and strikes, but this pattern, 73-0 of the Roberts five qualifies him to have nascar-style corporate badges on his ropes. Alito said what a strong principal stare decisis was. It means to leave things decided 12:30:39 PM when it suits our purposes. Gorsuch delivered the key fifth vote in the busting Janice decision. He too pledged in his hearing to follow the law of judicial precedent. Assures us he was not a philosopher king and promised to give equal concern to every person poor or rich, mighty or meek. How did that turn out? Great for the rich and mighty. Gorsuch is the single most corporate-friendly court already full of them. Ruling for corporate interests in 70% of the cases and in every single case where his vote was determinative. The president assures Evangelicals his 56 would attack roe vs. Wade. Despite assurances about precedent, your words said it is not settled law since the court can overrule its press depth. 12:31:42 PM Mr. Chairman, we have seen this movie before. We know how it ends. The sad fact is that there is no consequence for telling the committee fairy tales about sdis us and riding off with the Roberts five, train across whatever precedent gets in the way of letting those dig Republican interests keep winning 5-4 partisan decisions. 73-0, Mr. Kavanaugh. Every damned time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. GRASSLEY >> Senator Cruz. CRUZ >> Chairman, I have documents to support this. May I ask they be entered? GRASSLEY >> Without objection. So entered. CRUZ >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Judge Kavanaugh. Welcome. Welcome to your family and friends. Demonstrating your good judgment, your wife was born and raised in west Texas and you and 12:32:43 PM she have been friends of Heidi and mine for 20 years. Thank you for your decades of public service and I'm sorry that your daughters had to endure the political circus of this morning. That's the last of the world that is Washington in 2018. I want to discuss what this hearing is about and what it's not about. First, this hearing is not about the qualifications of the nominee. Judge Kavanaugh is by any objective measure unquestionably qualified for the supreme court. He is one of the most respected federal judges in the country. He has impeccable academic credentials even if he did go to Yale and you served over a decade for the D.C. Circuit, often referred to as the second highest court in the land. Our colleagues are not trying to make the argument that he is not qualified. 12:33:43 PM I evaporate heard any attempt to make that argument. Second, this hearing is not about his judicial record. Judge Kavanaugh has 3 hundred published opinions that amount to over 10,000 pages issues in his role as a federal appellate judge. A judge's record is by far the most important of what kind of justice that nominee will be. And tellingly we have heard very little from democratic senators about the actual substance of judge Kavanaugh's judicial record. Third, it's important to understand today is also not about documents. We heard a lot of arguments about documents. There is an old saying for trial lawyers. If you have the fax, pound the facts. If you have the law, pound the law. If you have neither, pound the table. We are seeing a lot of table pounding this morning. The Democrats are focused on procedural issues because they don't have substantive points 12:34:45 PM strong enough to derail this nomination and substantive criticism with judge Kavanaugh's actual record so they are trying to divert everyone with procedural issues. Let's talk about the documents for a moment. The claims that the Democrats are putting forward on documents don't with stand any serious scrutiny. Judge Kavanaugh has produced 511,948 pages of documents. That includes more than 17,000 pages in direct response to this committee's written questionnaire which is the most comprehensive response ever submitted to this committee. The more than half million pages of documents turned into this committee is more than the number of pages we received for the last five supreme court nominees combined. Listen to that fact again. The over half million documents turned over to this inquiry is more than the last five nominees 12:35:49 PM combined. So what's all the fuss over the do you mean that is not turned over? Most concern the three years as the staff secretary for president George W. Bush. Many people don't know what a staff secretary does, but that's the position in charge of all of the paper that comes into and out of the oval office. Critically, the staff secretary is not the author of the paper coming into and out of the oval office. That paper is typically written by the attorney general, secretary of state and other cabinet members and other white house officials. The staff secretary is is the funnel for collecting views and transferring the paper back and forth. In other words, those documents written by other people say nothing, zero about judge Kavanaugh's views and say nothing, zero about what kind of justice judge Kavanaugh would make. But they are by necessity the most sensitive and confidential 12:36:50 PM documents in the white house. They are the documents going to the president. This is the advice and deliberations of the president at the senior level and the staff secretary is the conduit for the documents. Why are the Democrats putting so much energy in saying hand over all of those documents? Because they know beyond a shadow of doubt that president George W. Bush's white house team is not going to allow every piece of paper that went to the president to be made public any more than any other white house would. Republican or Democrat, no white house would allow every piece of paper that went to and from the president to be made public. Indeed there are rules and laws and procedures for when and how presidential papers become public it is utterly irrelevant to what judge Kavanaugh thinks, believes, or have said. 12:37:51 PM It would open up fishing expeditions to relitigate George W. Bush's record as president and what cabinet members and advisers may or may not have said. But it is at the end of the day an attempt to distract and delay and indeed the multiple motions we have seen to delay the confirmation reveals the whole joke. Their objective is delay. So what is this fight about? If it's not about documents or judge Kavanaugh's credentials or judicial record, what is this fight about? I believe this fight is nothing more and nothing less than an attempt by colleagues to relitigate the 2016 presidential election. 2016 was a hard fought election all-around and it was the first presidential election in 60 years where American Americans went to the polls with a vacant seat on the supreme court that the next president would fill. 12:38:54 PM Americans knew who had been in that seat. The late justice Antonin Scalia. The supreme court seat was directly on the ballot. Both candidates knew the experience of the vacant seat and it was a major issue of contention in the presidential election. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were both clear about what kind of justices and judges they would appoint. During all three debates, both were asked what qualities were important to them when selecting a justice. Secretary Clinton's answer was clear. She wanted a justice who would be a liberal Progressive willing to rewrite the constitution and impose liberal policy agendas that she could not get through the democratic process and the congress of the United States would not adopt. That she hoped five unelected 12:39:54 PM lawyers would force on the American people. That's what Hillary Clinton promised for her nominees. Candidate trump said he was looking to appoint judges in the mold of justice Scalia and judges to interpret the constitution based on the original public meeting for the statutes according to the text and uphold the rule of law and treat parties fairly regardless of who they are and where they come from. Then candidate Donald Trump also did something that no candidate has done before. He published a list of nominees he would choose from when filling the seat, providing unprecedented transparency to the American people. All of this was laid before the American people as they went to the polls on November 8th, 2016. And the American people made a choice that night. My democratic colleagues are not happy with the choice of American people made, but as 12:40:55 PM president Obama said, elections have consequences. Because of American people had the chance to vote a national referendum on the direction of the supreme court, I said a number of times that justice Gorsuch's nomination and judge Kavanaugh's nomination have almost a super legitimacy in that they were ratified and decided by the American people in a direct vote in 2016. The democratic obstruction is trying to reverse the obstruction. They are unhappy with the choice the American people want. There is a reason that the American people want strong constitutionalists on the U.S. Supreme court. Most Americans, and I know the overwhelming majority of texans want judges to follow the law and not impose policy preferences on the rest of us and will be faithful to the constitution and the bill of rights. Justices who uphold liberties 12:41:56 PM like free speech like religious liberty and the second amendment. That's what this election was about. If you look at each of these, let's take free speech. It's worth noting that in 2014, every democratic member of this committee voted to amend the United States constitution to repeal the free speech provisions of the first amendment and sadly every Democrat in the senate agreed with that position. Voting to give congress unprecedented power to regulate political speech. It was a sad day for this institution. Years earlier, Ted Kennedy, the great liberal lion opposed a similar effort and said we haven't amended the bill of rights 200 years and now is not the time to start. Not a single Democrat had the courage to agree with Ted Kennedy and support free speech. 12:42:57 PM Indeed they voted party line to repeal the free speech provisions. That is radical and extreme and part of the reason the American people voted for a president who would put justices on the court who will protect our free speech. How about religious liberty? That's another fundamental protection that the Democrats in the senate have gotten extreme and radical on. Indeed our colleagues want justices who will rubber stamp efforts like the Obama administration's efforts litiing against the little sisters of the poor and against catholic nuns trying to force them to a pay for abortion inducing drugs and others. That is a radical and extreme proposition and to show how dramatic Democrats have gotten, every senate Democrat a few years ago voted to gut the religious freedom restoration act. Legislation that passed congress with overwhelming bipartisan 12:44:00 PM support in 1993 and was signed into law by Bill Clinton and two decades later, the party determined that the freedom is inconvenient for policy and political objectives and want justices that will further that assault on religious liberty. Let's take the second amendment. The presidential debates, Hillary Clinton promised to nominate justice to overturn Helder versus district of Columbia. Heller is the landmark decision issued by justice Scalia, likely the most significant decision of his tenure on the bench and it upheld the individual right to keep and bear arms. Hillary Clinton was quite explicit. She wanted judges to overturn Heller and a number of colleagues, that's what they want as well. Overturning Helder would be a radical proposition. You have to understand what they inside Heller. They said that the second amendment protects no individual right to keep and bear arms 12:45:00 PM whatsoever. It protects merely a collective right of the militia. The consequence of that proposition would mean that congress could pass a law, making it a felony, a criminal offense for any American to own any firearm and neither you nor I nor any American would have any individual right whatsoever under the second amendment. It would effectively erase the second amendment from the bill of rights. That is a breathtakingly extreme proposition. It is what Hillary Clinton promised they would do and at the end of the day what this fight is about. We know that every democratic member of this committee is going to vote no. We don't have to speculate. They publicly announced they are voting no. Doesn't depend on what they read in documents and what judge Kavanaugh says in this hearing. They announced ahead of time they are voting no and most of the Democrats in the senate 12:46:03 PM announced that. But everyone should understand judge Kavanaugh handed over more documents than any nominee, more than the last five combined, Republican and democratic nominees. This is not about documents and not about qualification or record. What it is about is politics. It is about democratic senators trying to relitigate the 2016 election and just as importantly, working to begin litigating the 2020 presidential election. We had an opportunity for the American people to speak and they did. They voted in 2016 and they wanted judges and justices who will be faithful to the constitution. That's why I'm confident at the end of what Shakespeare would describe as a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing, I am confident that judge Kavanaugh will be justice Kavanaugh and confirm to the United States supreme court. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. GRASSLEY >> We are going to take a break 12:47:05 PM now. And -- wait a minute! We are going take a break now and 30 minutes is what the Democrats would like to have. We will return at 1:17. Gorsuch returned about 10 minutes later than that. So be on time. BREAK FOR 30 MINUTES

<p><pi><b>This package/segment contains third party material. Unless otherwise noted, this material may only be used within this package/segment.</b></pi></p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--SUPERS</b>--</p>\n<p>Tuesday</p>\n<p>Reno, NV</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>:13-:16</p>\n<p>Family Photos </p>\n<p></p>\n<p>:59-1:06</p>\n<p>Jill Trankle</p>\n<p>Grandma</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>1:05-1:12</p>\n<p>Lexi Davis</p>\n<p>Bowler </p>\n<p></p>\n<p>1:33-1:36</p>\n<p>Madison Macay</p>\n<p>Reporting</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--LEAD IN</b>--</p>\n<p>A 16-YEAR-OLD IN NEVADA IS STRIKING A NEW LEVEL OF SUCCESS. </p>\n<p>SHE'S NOT LETTING BEING BLIND STOP HER FROM TAKING UP BOWLING IN HER SPARE TIME. </p>\n<p>MADISON MACAY HAS THE DETAILS. </p>\n<p><b>--REPORTER PKG-AS FOLLOWS</b>--</p>\n<p>Jill Trankle/Grandma: "When she first said she wanted to bowl I was like, well, how are you going to do that?"</p>\n<p>NATS </p>\n<p>Lexi Davis/Bowler: "I feel like a lot of people have low expectations of blind people and they don't think they can do what everyone else can do."</p>\n<p>SHE'S ONLY BEEN BOWLING FOR A YEAR, AND ALREADY HAS THE SPORT DOWN TO A SCIENCE. </p>\n<p>Lexi Davis/Bowler: "I like challenges. So the harder the harder the thing, the more I want to do it"</p>\n<p>AND WHAT CAN BE HARDER THAN BOWLING BLIND? </p>\n<p>Lexi Davis/Bowler: "Ashley taught me how to kind of picture the pins in my brain to like see where I should throw it. And then she taught me where to stand based on the middle dot, and I base everything off of that because I can see if kind of with my left eye."</p>\n<p>LEXI WAS NOT BORN BLIND. </p>\n<p>SHE DEVELOPED AN EYE ABNORMALITY WHEN SHE WAS AROUND ELEVEN YEARS OLD CALLED COLOBOMA. </p>\n<p>IT AFFECTS ONE IN EVERY TEN THOUSAND PEOPLE IN THE U.S.</p>\n<p>Jill Trankle/Grandma: "I mean she's always been visually impaired but when her retna detached it was like we did not expect that at all."</p>\n<p>Lexi Davis/Bowler: "When I first lost my vision I was super positive and made everything into a joke."</p>\n<p>(NATS) </p>\n<p>Lexi Davis/Bowler: "As I got older it kind of got more tough because school is hard when you're the disabled one. You just gotta be yourself. The right people will stay around."</p>\n<p>Madison Macay/Reporting: "If you think being blind is a strike against Lexi, think again. She bowled over two hundred points during a tournament."</p>\n<p>Lexi Davis/Bowler: "Since I base everything off of emotion I just kept bowling the same way I felt. And I just got six strikes in a row and it all just worked out." </p>\n<p>Jill Trankle/Grandma: "It's kind of amazing because when she turns around she always has the same expression until somebody tells her, 'you got a strike!' she goes, 'oh I did?!'"</p>\n<p>OH AND LEXI'S TALENTS DON'T END WITH BEING A STAND OUT BOWLER.</p>\n<p>Lexi Davis/Bowler: "I take a piece of paper and draw what I see in my head. And colorwise, I don't see colors. And just mix and match kind of colors. (And hope it looks great.)"</p>\n<p>CLEARLY LEXI HAS MANY PASSIONS CHALLENGING THE MISCONCEPTIONS BETWEEN SIGHT AND SPORT.</p>\n<p>IN RENO, IM MADISON MACAY.</p>\n<p><b>-----END-----CNN.SCRIPT-----</b></p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--KEYWORD TAGS--</b></p>\n<p>NEVADA SPORTS ATHLETE DISABILITY COLOBOMA RETINA DETACHMENT EYE</p>\n<p></p>