Christine Blasey Ford - Opening Statement, 'This is how I met Brett Kavanaugh, the boy who sexual assaulted me', Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearing - 2018

28 September 2018, Senate Committee, Washington DC, USA

Thank you, chairman Grassley and ranking member Feinstein, members of the committee, my name is Christine Blasey Ford. I'm a professor of psychology at Palo Alto University and a research psychologist at the Stanford University School of Medicine. I won't detail my educational background since it has already been summarized. I have been married to Russell Ford since 2002 and we have two children. I am here today not because I want to be. I am terrified. I am here because I believe it is my civic duty to tell you what happened to me while Brett Kavanaugh and I were in high school.

I have described the events publicly before. I summarized them in my letter to ranking member Feinstein and again in a letter to chairman Grassley. I understand and appreciate the importance of your hearing from me directly about what happened to me and the impact that it has had on my life and family. I grew up in the suburbs of Washington, D.C. I attended the school in Bethesda, Maryland from 1978 to 1984. Holton Arms is an all girls school that opened in 1901. During my time at the school girls at Holton Arms frequently met and became friendly with boys from all boys schools in the area including the Landon School, Georgetown Prep, Gonzaga high school and our country clubs and other places where kids and families socialized.

This is how I met Brett Kavanaugh, the boy who sexual assaulted me. During my freshman and sophomore school years, when I was 14 and 15 years old, my group of friends intersected with Brett and his friends for a short period of time. I had been friendly with a classmate of Brett's for a short time during my freshman and sophomore year. It was through that connection that I attended a number of parties that Brett also attended. We did not know each other well, but I knew him and he knew me. In the summer of 1982, like most summers, I spent most every day at the Columbia country club in Chevy chase, Maryland, swimming and practicing diving.

One evening that summer after a day of diving at the club, I attended a small gathering at a house in the Bethesda area. There were four boys I remember specifically being at the house -- Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, a boy named PJ, and one other boy whose name I cannot recall. I also remember my friend Leland attending. I do not remember all of the details of how that gathering came together, but like many that summer, it was almost surely a spur of the moment gathering. I truly wish I could be more helpful with more detailed answers to all of the questions that have and will be asked about how I got to the party and where it took place and so forth. I don't have all the answers and I don't remember as much as I would like to. But the details that -- about that night that bring me here today are the ones I will never forget. They have been seared into my memory and have haunted me episodically as an adult. When I got to the small gathering, people were drinking beer in a small living room family room type area on the first floor of the house.

I drank one beer. Brett and Mark were visibly drunk. Early in the evening, I went up a very narrow set of stairs leading from the living room to a second floor to use the restroom. When I got to the top of the stairs, I was pushed from behind into a bedroom across from the bathroom. I couldn't see who pushed me. Brett and Mark came into the bedroom and locked the door behind them. There was music playing in the bedroom. It was turned up louder by either Brett or Mark once we went into the room. I was pushed on the bed and Brett got on top of me and he began running his hands over my body and grinding into me. I yelled, hoping that someone downstairs might hear me and I tried to get away from him, but his weight was heavy. Brett groped me and tried to take off my clothes.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

He had a hard time because he was very inebriated and because I was wearing a one-piece bathing suit underneath my clothing. I believed he was going to rape me. I tried to yell for help. When I did, Brett put his hand over my mouth to stop me from yelling. This is what terrified me the most and has had the most lasting impact on my life. It was hard for me to breathe and I thought that Brett was accidentally going to kill me. Both Brett and Mark were drunkenly laughing during the attack. They seemed to be having a very good time. Mark seemed ambivalent at times urging Brett on and at times telling him to stop. A couple of times I made eye contact with Mark and thought he might try to help me, but he did not.

During this assault Mark came over and jumped on the bed twice while Brett was on top of me. The last time that he did this, we toppled over and Brett was no longer on top of me. I was able to get up and run out of the room directly across from the bedroom was a small I ran inside the bathroom and locked the door. I waited until I heard Brett and Mark leave the bedroom laughing and loudly walked down the narrow stairway, pin-balling off the walls on the way down. I waited and when I did not hear them come back up the stairs, I left the bathroom, went down the same stairwell through the living room and left the house. I remember being on the street and feeling an enormous sense of relief that I escaped that house and that Brett and Mark were not coming outside after me. Brett's assault on me drastically altered my life for a very long time.

I was too afraid and ashamed to tell anyone these details. I did not want to tell my parents that I at age 15 was in a house without any parents present drinking beer with boys. I convinced myself that because Brett did not rape me, I should just move on and just pretend that it didn't happen. Over the years, I told very, very few friends that I had this traumatic experience. I told my husband before we were married that I had experienced a sexual assault. I never told the details to anyone, the specific details, until may of 2012 during a couple's counseling session. The reason this came up in counseling is that my husband and I had completed a very extensive, very long remodel of our home and I insisted on a second front door, an idea that he and others disagreed with and could not understand.

In explaining why I wanted a second front door, I became to describe the assault in detail. I recall saying that the boy who assaulted me could someday be on the U.S. Supreme court and spoke a bit about his background at an elitist all boys school in Bethesda, Maryland. My husband recalls that I named my attacker as Brett Kavanaugh. After that may 2012 therapy session, I did my best to ignore the memories of the assault because recounting them caused me to relive the experience and caused panic and anxiety. Occasionally I would discuss the assault in an individual therapy session but talking about it caused more reliving of the trauma so I tried not to think about it or discuss it.

Over the years, I went through periods where I thought about the attack. I had confided in close friends I had an experience with sexual assault. Occasionally I stated my assailant was a prominent lawyer or judge but I did not use his I do not recall each person I spoke to about Brett's assault and some friends have reminded me of these conversations since the publication of The Washington Post story on September 16th, 2018. But until July 2018, I had never named Mr. Kavanaugh as my attacker outside of therapy. This changed in early July 2018. I saw press reports stating that Brett Kavanaugh was on the short list of a list of very well-qualified supreme court nominees. I thought it was my civic duty to relay the information I had about Mr. Kavanaugh's conduct so those considering his nomination would know about the assault.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

On July 6th, I had a sense of urgency to relay the information to the senate and the president as soon as possible before a nominee was selected. I did not know how specifically to do this. I called my congressional representative and let her receptionist know that someone on the president's short list had attacked me. I also sent a message to the encrypted Washington Post confidential tip line. I did not use my name, but I provided the names of Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge. I stated that Mr. Kavanaugh had assaulted me in the 1980s in Maryland. This was an extremely hard thing for me to do, but I felt that I couldn't not do it. Over the next two days, I told a couple of close friends on the beach in California that Mr. Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted me. I was very conflicted as to whether to speak out.

On July 9th, I received a return phone call from the office of congresswoman Anna Eshoo after Mr. Kavanaugh had become the nominee. I met with her staff on July 18th and with her on July 20th describing the assault and discussing my fears about coming later we discussed the possibility of sending a letter to ranking member Feinstein who is one of my state senators describing what occurred. My understanding is that representative Eshoo's office delivered a copy of my letter to senator Feinstein's office on July 30th. The letter included my name, but also a request that it be kept confidential. My hope was that providing the information confidentially would be sufficient to allow the senate to consider Mr. Kavanaugh's serious misconduct without having to make myself, my family, or anyone's family vulnerable to the personal attacks and invasions of privacy that we have faced since my name became public.

In a letter cited August 31st, senator Feinstein said she would not share the letter without my explicit consent and I appreciated this commitment. Sexual assault victims should be able to decide for themselves when and whether their private experience is made public. As the hearing date got closer, I struggled with a terrible choice, do I share the facts with the senate and put myself and my family in the public spotlight or do I preserve our privacy and allow the senate to make its decision without knowing the full truth of his past behaviors.

I agonized daily with this decision throughout August and September of 2018. The sense of duty that originally motivated me to reach out confidentially to The Washington Post and to Anna Eshoo's office when still a list of extremely qualified candidates and to Senator Feinstein was always there. But my fears of the consequences of speaking out started to exponentially increase. During August 2018, the press reported that Mr. Kavanaugh's confirmation was virtually certain. The persons painted him as a champion of women's rights and empowerment. I believed that if I came forward, my single voice would be drowned out by a chorus of powerful supporters. By the time of the confirmation hearings, I had resigned myself to remaining quiet and letting the committee and the senate make their decision without knowing what Mr. Kavanaugh had done to me.

Once the press started reporting on the existence of the letter I had sent to senator Feinstein I faced mounting pressure. Reporters appeared at my home and at my workplace demanding information about the letter in the presence of my graduate students. They called my bosses and co-workers and left me many messages making it clear that my name would inevitably be released to the media. I decided to speak out publicly to a journalist who had originally responded to the tip I had sent to The Washington Post and who had gained my trust. It was important for me to describe the details of the assault in my own words. Since September 16th, the date of The Washington Post story, I have experienced an outpouring of support from people in every state of this country.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

Thousands and thousands of people who have had their lives dramatically altered by sexual violence have reached out to share their experience and have thanked me for coming forward. We have received tremendous support from our friends and our at the same time, my greatest fears have been realized and the reality has been far worse than what I expected.

My family and I have been the target of constant harassment and death threats and I have been called the most vile and hateful names imaginable. These messages well far fewer than the expressions of support, have been terrifying and have rocked me to my core. People have posted my personal information and that of my parents on-line on the internet. This has resulted in additional e-mail, calls and forced to move out of our home.

Since September 16th, my family and I have been visiting in various secure locals, at times separated and-- at times together with the help of security guards. This past Tuesday evening my work e-mail was hacked and messages were sent out trying to recant my description of the sexual assault. Apart from the assault itself, these past couple of weeks have been the hardest of my life.

I have been accused of acting out of partisan political motives. Those who say that do not know me. I am an independent person and I am no one's pawn. My motivation in coming forward was to be helpful and to provide facts about how Mr. Kavanaugh's actions have damaged my life so that you could take into a series consideration as you make your decision about how to proceed.

It is not my responsibility to determine whether Mr. Kavanaugh deserves to sit on the supreme my responsibility is to tell you the truth. I understand that a professional prosecutor has been hired to ask me questions and I'm committed to doing my very best to answer them. I have never been questioned by a prosecutor and I will do my best. At the same time, because the committee members will be judging my credibility, I do hope to be able to engage directly with each of you and at this point, I will do my best to answer your questions. And I request some caffeine.

More From Politics in 2018

Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Collars Decoded

Cambridge Analytica Weoponized Fashion Data Too

Beto O'Rourke Hints at 2020 Presidential Run

Anita Hill: 'Judge Thomas began to use work situations to discuss sex', Testimony to Senate Judiciary Committee - 1991

11 October 1991, Washington DC, USA

In 1991, Anita Hill publicly accused then Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment in the early 1980s. He was appointed to the Bench.

Mr. Chairman, Senator Thurmond, members of the committee. My name is Anita F. Hill, and I am a professor of law at the University of Oklahoma. I was born on a farm in Okmulgee County, Oklahoma, in 1956. I am the youngest of 13 children.

I had my early education in Okmulgee County. My father, Albert Hill, is a farmer in that area. My mother's name is Irma Hill. She is also a farmer and a housewife.

My childhood was one of a lot of hard work and not much money, but it was one of solid family affection as represented by my parents. I was reared in a religious atmosphere in the Baptist faith, and I have been a member of the Antioch Baptist Church in Tulsa, Oklahoma, since 1983. It is a very warm part of my life at the present time.

For my undergraduate work, I went to Oklahoma State University and graduated from there in 1977. . . .I graduated from the university with academic honors and proceeded to the Yale Law School, where I received my J. D. degree in 1980.

Upon graduation from law school, I became a practicing lawyer with the Washington, D. C., firm of Wald, Hardraker & Ross. In 1981, I was introduced to now-Judge Thomas by a mutual friend.

Judge Thomas told me that he was anticipating a political appointment, and he asked if I would be interested in working with him.

He was in fact appointed as assistant secretary of Education for civil rights. After he was, after he had taken that post, he asked if I would become his assistant, and I accepted that position.

In my early period there, I had two major projects. The first was an article I wrote for Judge Thomas' signature on the education of minority students. The second was the organization of a seminar on high risk students, which was abandoned because Judge Thomas transferred to the EEOC, where he became the chairman of that office.

During this period at the Department of Education my working relationship with Judge Thomas was positive. I had a good deal of responsibility and independence. I thought he respected my work and that he trusted my judgment.

After approximately three months of working there, he asked me to go out socially with him. What happened next, and telling the world about it, are the two most difficult things-experiences of my life.

It is only after a great deal of agonizing consideration and sleepless nights that I am able to talk of these unpleasant matters to anyone but my close friends.

I declined the invitation to go out socially with him and explained to him that I thought it would jeopardize at -what at the time I considered to be a very good working relationship. I had a normal social life with other men outside the office. I believed then, as now, that having a social relationship with a person who was supervising my work would be ill-advised. I was very uncomfortable with the idea and told him so.

I thought that by saying no and explaining my reasons, my employer would abandon his social suggestions. However, to my regret, in the following few weeks, he continued to ask me out on several occasions.

He pressed me to justify my reasons for saying no to him. These incidents took place in his office or mine. They were in the form of private conversations, which not-would not have been overheard by anyone else.

My working relationship became even more strained when Judge Thomas began to use work situations to discuss sex. On these occasions he would call me into his office for reports on education issues and projects, or he might suggest that because of the time pressures of his schedule we go to lunch to a government cafeteria.

After a brief discussions of work, he would turn the conversation to a discussion of sexual matters. His conversations were very vivid. He spoke about acts that he had seen in pornographic films involving such matters as women having sex with animals and films showing group sex or rape scenes.

He talked about pornographic materials depicting individuals with large penises or large breasts involving various sex acts. On several occasions, Thomas told me graphically of his own sexual prowess.

Because I was extremely uncomfortable talking about sex with him at all, and particularly in such a graphic way, I told him that I did not want to talk about this subject. I would also try to change the subject to education matters or to non-sexual personal matters, such as his background or his beliefs.

My efforts to change the subject were rarely successful.

Throughout the period of these conversations, he also from time to time asked me for social engagements. My reaction to these conversations was to avoid them by eliminating opportunities for us to engage in extended conversations.

This was difficult because, at the time, I was his only assistant at the Office of Education-or Office for Civil Rights. During the latter part of my time at the Department of Education, the social pressures, and any conversation of his offensive behavior, ended. I began both to believe and hope that our working relationship could be a proper, cordial and professional one.

When Judge Thomas was made chair of the EEOC, I needed to face the question of whether to go with him. I was asked to do so, and I did.

The work itself was interesting, and at the time it appeared that the sexual overtures which had so troubled me had ended.

I also faced the realistic fact that I had no alternative job. While I might have gone back to private practice, perhaps in my old firm or at another, I was dedicated to civil rights work, and my first choice was to be in that field. Moreover, at that time, the Department of Education itself was a dubious venture. President Reagan was seeking to abolish the entire department.

For my first months at the EEOC where I continued to be an assistant to Judge Thomas, there were no sexual conversations or overtures. However, during the fall and winter of 1982, these began again. The comments were random and ranged from pressing me about why I didn't go out with him to remarks about my personal appearance. I remember his saying that some day I would have to tell him the real reason that I wouldn't go out with him.

He began to show displeasure in his tone and voice and his demeanor and his continued pressure for an explanation. He commented on what I was wearing in terms of whether it made me more or less sexually attractive. The incidents occurred in his inner office at the EEOC.

One of the oddest episodes I remember was an occasion in which Thomas was drinking a Coke in his office. He got up from the table at which we were working, went over to his desk to get the Coke, looked at the can and asked, "Who has put pubic hair on my Coke?"

On other occasions, he referred to the size of his own penis as being larger than normal, and he also spoke on some occasions of the pleasures he had given to women with oral sex. At this point, late 1982, I began to feel severe stress on the job. I began to be concerned that Clarence Thomas might take out his anger with me by degrading me or not giving me important assignments. I also thought that he might find an excuse for dismissing me. In January of 1983, I began looking for another job. I was handicapped because I feared that if he found out, he might make it difficult for me to find other employment, and I might be dismissed from the job I had. Another factor that made my search more difficult was that there was a period-this was during a period-of a hiring freeze in the government.

In February 1983 I was hospitalized for five days on an emergency basis for acute stomach pain, which I attributed to stress on the job. Once out of the hospital I became more committed to find other employment and sought further to minimize my contact with Thomas. This became easier when Allison Duncan became office director, because most of my work was then funneled through her, and I had contact with Clarence Thomas mostly in staff meetings.

In the spring of 1983, and opportunity to teach at Oral Roberts University opened up. I participated in a seminar, taught an afternoon session in a seminar at Oral Roberts University. The dean of the university saw me teaching and inquired as to whether I would be interested in further pursuing a career in teaching beginning at Oral Roberts University. I agreed to take the job, in large part because of my desire to escape the pressures I felt at the EEOC due to Judge Thomas.

When I informed him that I was leaving in July, I recall that his response was that now I would no longer have an excuse for not going out with him. I told him that I still preferred not to do so. At some time after that meeting, he asked if he could take me to dinner at the end of the term. When I declined, he assured me that the dinner was a professional courtesy only and not a social invitation. I reluctantly agreed to accept that invitation but only if it was at the very end of a working day.

On, as I recall, the last day of my employment at the EEOC in the summer of 1983, I did have dinner with Clarence Thomas . We went directly from work to a restaurant near the office. We talked about the work I had done, both at Education and at the EEOC. He told me that he was pleased with all of it except for an article and speech that I had done for him while we were at the Office for Civil Rights. Finally he made a comment that I will vividly remember. He said that if I ever told anyone of his behavior that it would ruin his career. This was not an apology, nor was it an explanation. That was his last remark about the possibility of our going out or reference to his behavior.

In July of 1983 I left the Washington, D. C. area, and I've had minimal contacts with Judge Clarence Thomas since. I am of course aware from the press that some questions have been raised about conversations I had with Judge Clarence Thomas after I left the EEOC. From 1983 until today, I have seen Judge Thomas only twice. On one occasion I needed to get a reference from him, and on another, he made a public appearance in Tulsa. On one occasion he called me at home, and we had an inconsequential conversation. On one occasion he called me without reaching me, and I returned the call without reaching him, and nothing came of it.

I have, on at least three occasions, been asked to act as a conduit to him for others. I knew his secretary, Diane Holt. We had worked together at both EEOC and Education. There were occasions on which I spoke to her, and on some of the these occasions, undoubtedly, I passed on some casual comment to then-Chairman Thomas.

There were a series of calls in the first three months of 1985 occasioned by a group in Tulsa, which wished to have a civil rights conference. They wanted Judge Thomas to be the speaker and enlisted my assistance for this purpose. I did call in January and February , to no effect, and finally suggested to the person directly involved, Susan Cahall, that she put the matter into her own hands and call directly. She did so in March of 1985.

In connection with that March invitation, Miss Cahall wanted conference materials for the seminar, and some research was needed. I was asked to try to get the information and did attempt to do so. There was another call about the possible conference in July of 1985.

In August of 1987 I was in Washington D.C., and I did call Diane Holt. In the course of his conversation, she asked me how long I was going to be in town, and I told her. It is recorded in the message as August 15. It was in fact August 20. She told me about Judge Thomas' marriage, and I did say congratulate him.

It is only after a great deal of agonizing consideration that I am able to talk of these unpleasant matters to anyone except my closest friends, as I've said before. These last few days have been very trying and very hard for me, and it hasn't just been the last few days this week.

It has actually been over a month now that I have been under the strain of this issue.

Telling the world is the most difficult experience of my life, but it is very close to having to live through the experience that occasioned this meeting. I may have used poor judgment early on in my relationship with this issue. I was aware, however, that telling at any point in my career could adversely affect my future career, and I did not want early on, to burn all the bridges to the EEOC.

As I said, I may have used poor judgment. Perhaps I should have taken angry or even militant steps, both when I was in the agency or after I left it. But I must confess to the world that the course that I took seemed the better, as well as the easier, approach.

I declined any comment to newspapers, but later, when Senate staff asked me about these matters, I felt I had a duty to report. I have no personal vendetta against Clarence Thomas . I seek only to provide the committee with information which it may regard as relevant .

It would have been more comfortable to remain silent. It took no initiative to inform anyone-I took no initiative to inform anyone. But when I asked by a representative of this committee to report my experience, I felt that I had to tell the truth. I could not keep silent.