Skip to main content

Charles Schumer
  U.S. Senate Sen. Schumer on Sexual Misconduct Allegations Against Brett...  CSPAN  September 18, 2018 3:38am-3:50am EDT

3:38 am
the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. schumer: madam president, over the last -- over the past
3:39 am
few days, new allegations have come to light about president trump's nominee to the supreme court, brett kavanaugh. these allegations ought to be treated with the utmost graffiti. the allegations are extremely credible. they were made by someone who voluntarily submitted to a lie detector test and had been discussed in the past, long before kavanaugh's nomination to the supreme court with a family therapist. i believe her. many, many, many americans believe her. many, many women in america who have been taken advantage of certainly believe her. for too long women have made serious allegations of abuse and have been ignored or dragged through the mud. it would be a disgrace if this body and our fellow republicans let that happen. chairman grassley must postpone the vote on judge kavanaugh's
3:40 am
nomination until, at a very minimum, these serious and credible allegations are thoroughly investigated. the f.b.i. conducted a background check on judge kavanaugh before these allegations were known. the f.b.i. when they did their background check had no knowledge of what went on here. so it is now the f.b.i.'s responsibility to investigate these claims, update the analysis to judge kavanaugh's background, and report back to the senate the f.b.i. is the right place for this investigation for two reasons. first, the f.b.i. has the resources, the information, and the legal tools to conduct an investigation the right way, far better than some staffer talking to professor ford on the phone. you cannot lie to the f.b.i. that's a crime. the f.b.i. will get to the
3:41 am
truth. they almost always do. second, our republican colleagues have run a transparently partisan conversation process, and then they immediately insinuated that dr. ford is being untruthful. republicans and their staff cannot impartially investigate these allegations. they've already said that they're not true. republicans and their staff cannot do this in a respected way because they have run such a partisan investigation thus far. there's no bipartisanship here, none. so to have any credibility, this has to be done by an independent , outside body. the f.b.i. is the best one. the vote must be postponed until it is complete. it is an insult -- insult -- to
3:42 am
the women of america to rush this through after these serious allegations have been made. it is an insult to the majesty of the supreme court to rush this through. -- when these serious allegations have come forward. now, in addition, dr. ford has said she's willing to testify before the judiciary committee. does anyone believe it is better for staff to talk to her on the phone, republican staff only -- because no democratic staff will participate in this biased, far-fetched process? does anyone think it's not better for her to come testify? then why can't see? chairman grassley should provide the american people the forum to hear her out. i believe she's credible.
3:43 am
a lot of my republican friends don't. what are they afraid of? are they afraid that she might be very persuasive? well, if she is, it is a whole different ballgame, isn't it? so chairman grassley should and must provide the american people the forum to hear her out and decide for themselves whether her testimony reflects on judge kavanaugh's character and fitness for the supreme court. of course he can have the chance to testify again, too, and both of them have said they would. so why, in the good lord's name, why wouldn't we do that? why? there's no reason. no reason. there is no requirement, rule, or precedent that says the judiciary committee must move forward on judge kavanaugh's nomination this week. none. what's the reason we have to rush it through? when these allegations are hanging out there, when women
3:44 am
who are victimized deserve the right to be heard, at the very minimum? and then the gall -- the gall of my dear friend, the republican leader, who delayed justice scalia's seat being filled for nine months to say that we can't take a couple of extra weeks. unmitigated gall. the seat of justice scalia was held open for a long time, a long time, and now, with no reason, my colleague says we can't do that. chairman grassley has to stop playing games, pretending like the nomination can continue to glide through while at the same time the senate conducts a review of these allegations.
3:45 am
hastily arranged private phone calls with committee staff members is not even close to constituting a fair and thorough review. it is not part of any sort of regular order and does not substitute for an f.b.i. background check or a public hearing. again, let me ask my dear friend, the leader, what is the reason now that both judge kavanaugh and professor ford have said they'll come testify, that we don't do it? give me one good reason, one. it's unrelated to how this -- how we became aware of these allegations. whether you like it or not, there is a right for it to be heard. with allegations as serious as the ones before us, the senate must not, it cannot, the honor of the senate conduct a haphazard, slipshod review of
3:46 am
dr. ford's claims or be rushed to a vote. there must be time for the f.b.i. to do its work, for the judiciary committee to properly prepare to hear testimony from dr. ford and judge kavanaugh. and there is he a. another issue here -- and there's another issue here. judge kavanaugh's credibility has already been seriously questioned in the aftermath of his testimony regarding e-mails stolen from the judiciary committee by a republican member, by his involvement in the nomination of judge william pryor, and other controversies. in all of these cases, judge kavanaugh's credibility was questioned because documents reveal that he was far more involved than he head on to when he testified. -- than he led on to when he testified. and now he has unequivocally denied this. there is an issue of credibility here. you have two people with diametrically opposed views as to what happened. and this is not just an argument
3:47 am
for its open sake. it is for nomination to the supreme court, the highest court in the land that terms through their legal rulings the lives of americans, and in many instances is seen as the arbiter of right and wrong. are we going to let this happen, not even hear what someone who believes she was terribly aggrieved -- and i believe her -- has to say? when the credibility of a supreme court justice is on the line, we're going to just brush it under the rug? and again, after delaying merrick garland for over a year with no explanation as to why we can't wait a short -- a much shorter period of time, the double standard, the twisting of this body into a cruel, nasty
3:48 am
partisanship, unprecedented, in a feverish desire to fill the bench with people that the other side agrees with. it's one of the lowest points i have seen in my years here. one of the lowest points. i want to applaud my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have called for hearings. i believe one way or another six have said this should be delayed. i hope they'll be strong. i hope they'll tell leader mcconnell he's doing the wrong thing. dr. ford deserves to be heard. to railroad a vote now would be a deep insult to the women of america, a lasting scar on the integrity of
3:49 am