Christine Blasey Ford, a California professor who accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault when they were both in high school in the 1980s, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday, recalling the events.

A committee vote to move the confirmation of Kavanaugh to the full Senate will happen Friday.

Ford testimony

In her opening statement, Ford emphasized civic duty as the reason she felt compelled to come forward.

“I am here today not because I want to be. I am terrified,” Ford said. “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.”

Ford went on to recount the evening in question, though she prefaced her story by telling committee members that she doesn’t remember as much as she would like to, but the details that brought her before the committee have been seared into her memory and haunted her as an adult.

Ford’s opening statement included a graphic description of the alleged sexual assault. She says during the incident, Kavanaugh put his hand over her mouth to stop her yelling for help, which has stuck with her more than anything.

“I believed he was going to rape me,” Ford said. “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.”

Ford also walked committee members through her process of deciding to notify Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., and the Washington Post of her memory of the evening. Ford said she initially wanted to remain anonymous, but it eventually became clear that would be impossible.

Several Republicans have said they believe the delay in Ford’s coming forward publicly was motivated by partisanship, but Ford firmly denied the accusation in her opening statement.

“I am an independent person, and I am no one’s pawn,” she said.

During committee questioning, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee deferred their questioning to Rachel Mitchell, an Arizona prosecutor who specializes in sex crimes.

Mitchell began her first round of questioning by directly addressing Ford’s opening statement.

“The first thing that struck me from your statement this morning was that you’re terrified,” Ford said. “I just wanted to let you know I am very sorry. That’s not right.”

Mitchell’s questioning largely focused on confirming the details of the night in question, Ford’s process of notifying her representatives and the press, and Ford’s process of obtaining a lawyer and taking a polygraph.

Mitchell ended her questioning of Ford by saying the style of questioning in 5-minute increments is not the most effective way to interview a trauma survivor.

During their questioning, many Democratic senators called Ford brave for coming before the committee and gave her the opportunity to elaborate on her memory of the evening.

Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., asked Ford how certain she was that Kavanaugh was the one who assaulted her, mentioning that two other men have come forward claiming to be the ones that assaulted her.

Ford said she is 100 percent sure it was Kavanaugh.

Kavanaugh testimony

Kavanaugh began his testimony by insisting that he had been fully open to any investigation of the alleged sexual assault.

“When this allegation first arose, I welcomed any kind of investigation, Senate, FBI or otherwise,” Kavanaugh said. “The committee now has conducted a thorough investigation, and I’ve cooperated fully.”

He went on to allege that the accusations against him were politically motivated.

“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 behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups,” Kavanaugh said.

Responding to a line of questioning from Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Kavanaugh said he emphatically denies that all the allegations against him are true. In particular, he referred to the newest set of allegations by Julie Swetnick as “a joke” and “a farce.”

Durbin’s line of questioning returned to Kavanaugh’s opening statement, addressing his willingness to cooperate in an investigation. Durbin asked Kavanaugh to turn to White House Counsel Don McGahn, who was sitting near Kavanaugh, and request an investigation.

“Turn to Don McGahn and tell him it’s time to get this done,” Durbin said. “An FBI investigation is the only way to answer some of these questions.”

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, interjected.

“This committee is running this hearing, not the White House, not Don McGahn, not even you as a nominee,” Grassley said. “I want to assure Senator Durbin, regardless of what you say to Don McGahn, we are not suspending this hearing.”

Mitchell continued questioning Kavanaugh in place of Republican committee members for the first three rounds of questioning, but Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., took over on the fourth round of Republican questioning.

Graham erupted with anger at Democrats, saying they wanted to destroy Kavanaugh’s life and hold the Supreme Court seat open.

“Boy, y’all want power,” Graham said. “God, I hope you never get it.”

Analysis of testimonies

“I agree with the rest of America, [Ford’s] testimony was very compelling,” said David Andersen, assistant professor of political science at Iowa State. “Even the Republicans, who will not act on her testimony, said she was very compelling. It’s believable, and it seems she believes what she is saying. She really upheld her story very, very effectively.”

A large portion of early questioning in the Ford hearing was conducted by prosecutor Rachel Mitchell, and Andersen said this was done to come off as sensitive.

“That was made as a political calculus,” Andersen said. “The Republican party is fighting an image of being old white men who don’t respect women, and it would have been an absolutely horrible visual to have six or seven white men who are berating this woman about being sexually assaulted. It would have been in every campaign commercial this fall.”

Andersen said Kavanaugh’s testimony, which was emotionally charged, was similarly compelling, and showed Kavanaugh’s frustrations with the process.

“He also testified very well,” Andersen said. “He was consistent; he was compelling. I think the thing that I really felt from him was his frustration. That when he began this process he was overjoyed he was going to be the next supreme court justice, and his whole life was ripped out from under him. He feels like it is unfair.”

Lucken Endowed Professor of Political Science Steffen Schmidt recognized this frustration as well, while also voicing some of his own frustrations.

Calling it a sad day, Schmidt said whatever decision the committee comes to would be a lose-lose. If he is approved, there has been distrust build into the public which could undermine the public’s perception of the supreme court, and if he is rejected, Schmidt said there would be implications for future judges.

“It sends a message that future want-to-be confirmed, or want-to-be positions like this that even things they did when they were 17 years old or 18 years old back in high school can be dug up and brought up against them,” Schmidt said. “I mean a lot of people did stupid stuff in high school, and if they think those activities are going to be public or destroy their relationships their family or make them publicly humiliated, they will never want to be a judge, justice or even in public office. That is a bad thing. We need people presenting themselves to become judges, and the question is, ‘is there an expiration date on stupid behavior?’ and it looks right now that there isn’t.”

While Schmidt said he didn’t know the answer to if there should be an expiration date on “stupid behavior,” Andersen said he was certain that people should be held accountable for anything they do in their lives.

“I completely disagree,” Andersen said. “It sends completely the right message. That anything you do can be used against you in the future and that this is something everyone has to wake up to. That sexual assault is not okay, even if you can get away with it as a teenager. It should haunt you for the rest of your life, and if the person who comes out and talks about it, yes it can cause you, your career or your family. There are dire consequences tied to your actions.”

Taylor Blair, president of Iowa State College Democrats, said the question of whether there is a statute of limitations on behavior like this as Kavanaugh faces two other accusers who allege experiences of assault at more recent dates. Blair also said there was some hypocrisy related to the situation.

“Donald Trump advocated for the death penalty for the Central Park five, and they were the same age,” Blair said about Republicans reactions to sexual assault under different contexts.

Despite the potential controversy surrounding Kavanaugh, Blair said on merit alone he wouldn’t support the nominee because of his potential positions women’s issues and presidential immunity.

This isn’t the first time there have been political reasons for opposing a nominee. Andersen and Schmidt both said this is one of many Supreme Court picks that have been contested since the 1980s. Schmidt in particular, denounced the recent process nominees go through and called the Thursday hearing, unusual.

“It has injected pure partisan politics into the whole thing,” Schmidt said. “This nomination is all Democrats versus Republicans. There were no questions today on his constitutional philosophy. There was nothing related to the defense of the constitution and interpretation of the constitution which is what supreme court justices do.”

Even though this controversy continues, Andersen said it likely won’t change Kavanaugh’s odds of becoming the next justice on the Supreme Court. Instead, he said it would be more likely that the vote is delayed a few days while Republicans poll public opinion.

Recent polls in Iowa rated approval of Kavanaugh’s nomination at 37 percent, disapproval at 34 percent and undecided at 32 percent. Schmidt cited this poll saying it showed approval of Kavanaugh is almost tied exactly to party line.

“Those percentages are actually very close to the percentages of the election, and that tells us that this is a matter of Democrats saying they oppose him and Republicans saying they support him,” Schmidt said. “We are a country that is unbelievably divided.”

Republicans during the hearing also denounced the seeming partisanship divide between Kavanaugh’s support and his opposition. The most vocal of these was Sen. Graham.

“With all due respect, his arguments are laughable,” Andersen said. “He is a senator who stood with his party when they refused to even hold hearings on President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland just a few years ago. The fact that he is surprised that now the Democrats are trying to hold up a Republican nominee is just absolutely ridiculous. This is something he was a part of creating, and unfortunately it’s how the parties operate now, and I don’t know how we are ever going to get out of this.”