Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) Will Vote Yes for Kavanaugh SCOTUS Nomination with an Amazing Speech(VIDEO)

SEN. SUSAN COLLINS DELIVERED ONE OF THE BEST SPEECHES A U.S. SENATOR HAS EVER MADE ON THE SENATE FLOOR … SEN. COLLINS BRINGS MATURITY BACK TO THE SENATE … THANK YOU!

This afternoon Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) delivered one a the greatest speeches ever given from the U.S Senate floor. Sen. Collins announced her decision to vote to confirm Judge Brett Kavanaugh to be an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. In doing so she provided an incredible review of judge Kavanaugh’s judicial past as well as the sexual misconduct allegations. In the end Collins stated,  The facts presented do not mean that Professor Ford was not sexually assaulted that night or at some other time, but they do lead me to conclude that the allegations fail to meet the more likely than not standard. Therefore, I do not believe that these charges can fairly prevent Judge Kavanaugh from serving on the court. Mr. President, I will vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh.

Americans have to remember, this tremendous speech supporting judge Kavanaugh and the rule of law did not come from an old, white, Conservative man. It came from a moderate Republican from Maine, who many deem a RINO. And still the left comes out with their knives and are rabid.  They LEFT, who have become insane, and out of touch with America, have turned on what they had considered one of their own. Let this be a lesson to Sen. Collins. The left only likes you when you agree with them in lockstep, if you do one thing that is adult and for the good of the country they go after you.

Some of the allegations levied against Judge Kavanaugh illustrate why the presumption of innocence is so important. I am thinking in particular not of the allegations raised by Professor Ford, but of the allegation that when he was a teenager, Judge Kavanaugh drugged multiple girls and used their weakened state to facilitate gang rape. This outlandish allegation was put forth without any credible supporting evidence and simply parroted public statements of others. That such an allegation can find its way into the Supreme Court confirmation process is a stark reminder about why the presumption of innocence is so ingrained in our American consciousness.

In addition to the lack of corroborating evidence, we also learned some facts that raised more questions. For instance, since these allegations have become public, Professor Ford testified that not a single person has contacted her to say I was at the party that night. Furthermore, the professor testified that although she does not remember how she got home that evening, she knew that because of the distance she would have needed a ride, yet not a single person has come forward to say that they were the one who drove her home or were in the car with her that night. And Professor Ford also indicated that, even though she left that small gathering of six or so people abruptly and without saying good-bye, and distraught, none of them called her the next day or ever to ask why she left, is she okay, not even her closest friend Ms. Keyser. Mr. President, the Constitution does not provide guidance on how we are supposed to evaluate these competing claims. It leaves that decision up to each senator. This is not a criminal trial, and I do not believe that the claims such as these need to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, fairness would dictate that the claims at least should meet a threshold of more likely than not as our standard. The facts presented do not mean that Professor Ford was not sexually assaulted that night or at some other time, but they do lead me to conclude that the allegations fail to meet the more likely than not standard. Therefore, I do not believe that these charges can fairly prevent Judge Kavanaugh from serving on the court.

Mr. President, we’ve heard a lot of charges and counter-charges about Judge Kavanaugh. But as those who have known him best have attested, he has been an exemplary public servant, judge, teacher, coach, husband and father. Despite the turbulent, bitter  fight surrounding his nomination, my fervent hope is that Brett Kavanaugh will work to lessen the divisions in the Supreme Court so that we have far fewer 5-4 decisions and so that public confidence in our judiciary and our highest court is restored. Mr. President, I will vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh. Thank you, Mr. President.

The full text from Sen. Susan Collins:

Mr. President, the five previous times that I’ve come to the floor to explain my vote on the nomination of a justice to the United States Supreme Court, I have begun my floor remarks explaining my decision with a recognition of the solemn nature and the importance of the occasion. But today we have come to the conclusion of a confirmation process that has become so dysfunctional, it looks more like a caricature of a gutter-level political campaign than a solemn occasion. The president nominated Brett Kavanaugh on July 9th. Within moments of that announcement, special interest groups raced to be the first to oppose him, including one organization that didn’t even bother to fill in the judge’s name on its prewritten press release. They simply wrote that they opposed Donald Trump’s nomination of “XX” to the Supreme Court of the United States. A number of senators joined the race to announce their opposition, but they were beaten to the punch by one of our colleagues who actually announced opposition before the nominee’s identity was even known. [...]

Against this backdrop, it is up to each individual senator to decide what the Constitution’s advice-and-consent duty means. Informed by Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist 76, I have interpreted this to mean that the president has brought discretion to consider a nominee’s philosophy, whereas my duty as a Senator is to focus on the nominee’s qualifications as long as that nominee’s philosophy is within the mainstream of judicial thought. I have always opposed litmus tests for judicial nominees with respect to their personal views or politics, but I fully expect them to be able to put aside any and all personal preferences in deciding the cases that come before them. I’ve never considered the president’s identity or party when evaluating Supreme Court nominations. As a result, I voted in favor of Justices Roberts and Alito, who were nominated by President Bush, Justices Sotomayor and Kagan nominated by President Obama. [...]

Against this backdrop, it is up to each individual senator to decide what the Constitution’s advice-and-consent duty means. Informed by Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist 76, I have interpreted this to mean that the president has brought discretion to consider a nominee’s philosophy, whereas my duty as a Senator is to focus on the nominee’s qualifications as long as that nominee’s philosophy is within the mainstream of judicial thought. I have always opposed litmus tests for judicial nominees with respect to their personal views or politics, but I fully expect them to be able to put aside any and all personal preferences in deciding the cases that come before them. I’ve never considered the president’s identity or party when evaluating Supreme Court nominations. As a result, I voted in favor of Justices Roberts and Alito, who were nominated by President Bush, Justices Sotomayor and Kagan nominated by President Obama. [...]

Despite all this, Kavanaugh’s record, and listening to 32 hours of his testimony, the Senate’s advice and consent role was thrown into a tailspin following the allegations of sexual assault by Professor Christine Blasey Ford. The confirmation process now involves evaluating whether or not Judge Kavanaugh committed sexual assault and lied about it to the Judiciary Committee. Some argue that, because this is a lifetime appointment to our highest courts, public interest requires that doubts be resolved against the nominee. Others see the public interest as abiding to our longest tradition of affording to those accused of misconduct a presumption of innocence. In cases in which the facts are unclear, they would argue that the question should be resolved in favor of the nominee.

Polls: North Dakota Senate – Cramer vs. Heitkamp … Kavanaugh Nomination Front and Center for Red State Democrats

BLUE WAVE? RED STATE DEMOCRATS MIGHT BE BLOWN OUT OF OFFICE AS KAVANAUGH BECOMES MIDTERM REFERENDUM …

In a recent Valley News Live poll conducted by Strategic Research Associates of Austin, Texas, Republican U.S. Senate challenger in North Dakota Kevin Cramer is ahead of incumbent Democrat Heidi Heitkamp by 10 percentage points, 51%-41%. If this trend continues, Republicans will be picking up this Senate seat in the 2018 midterm elections. Even more damning to not only Democrat incumbent Heitkamp, another question asked during the poll stated that 60% of the likely voters in North Dakota support the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court, while 27% were opposed. This forces Heitkamp into a precarious situation, and not just her, all Red state Democrat Senators where Trump won overwhelmingly in 2016. The Kavanaugh nomination has now become a voting issue for the 2018 midterm elections as the Democrats have way overplayed their hand.

Republican candidate Kevin Cramer is ahead in the latest polling by Valley News Live on the U.S. Senate race in North Dakota. The poll, conducted by Strategic Research Associates of Austin, Texas, has Cramer in front of the incumbent Democrat Heidi Heitkamp by 10 percentage points, 51-41. The difference is in male voters, where Cramer garners 56.% to Heitkamp’s nearly 35%. Females are virtually tied (46.6%-46.5%).

A total of 650 likely voters were surveyed between September 17-27th on both landline and cell phones.

In another question that VNL asked, 60% of the likely voters in North Dakota support the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court. 27% were opposed.

RCP now has Republican Kevin Cramer up by 6 points, 49% to 43% over incumbent Democrat Heitkamp. Look for this state to flip Republican.

Ex-Boyfriend of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford Says She Coached A Friend Before Taking A Polygraph & Contradicted Ford’s Claims She is Afraid of Flying and Doesn’t Like Small Spaces

EX-BOYFRIEND COMES FORWARD AND CONTRADICTS DR. FORD’S SWORN TESTIMONY TO CONGRESS …

From the Federalist comes this potential bombshell, in a sworn statement provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee, a man who claims to be an ex-boyfriend of Christine Blasey Ford says that he personally witnessed Dr. Ford coach a friend on how to take a polygraph exam.  If this is true, this could be trouble for Dr. Ford. Ford claimed during her testimony last Thursday that she had not ever coached or prepped anyone prior to the administering of a polygraph examination. Did she perjure herself?   Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, sent the attorney’s of Dr. Ford a letter requesting the all polygraph-related documents and media to the Senate for review, that they have previously not provided.

Christine Blasey Ford says she never gave anyone tips on how to take a polygraph test during Senate hearings

The troubling allegations about Ford’s polygraph history and potentially false testimony were revealed Tuesday in a letter from Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, to attorneys for Ford. Ford and her attorneys have thus far refused to provide all polygraph-related documents and media to the Senate for review.

“During some of the time we were dating, Dr. Ford lived with Monica L. McLean, who I understood to be be her life-long best friend,” the ex-boyfriend, whose name was redacted from the statement he gave to the Senate, wrote. “During that time, it was my understanding that McLean was interviewing for jobs with the FBI and U.S. Attorney’s Office.”

“I witnessed Dr. Ford help McLean prepare for a potential polygraph exam,” he said. “Dr. Ford explained in detail what to expect, how polygraphs worked, and helped McLean become familiar and less nervous about the exam.”

As reported at the Daily Caller, an alleged ex-boyfriend of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford came forward on Tuesday and said that she had once coached her longtime friend on how to take a polygraph test. See the letter below. The individual also went on to state that he never witnessed that Dr. Ford was afraid of small spaces.

The letter was first obtained by Fox News’ John Roberts and it began by saying that he “found her truthful and maintain no animus” during their relationship from 1992-1998.

It said, “During that time, it was my understanding that [Ford’s roommate, Monica] McLean was interviewing for jobs with the FBI and US Attorney’s Office. I witnessed Dr. Ford help McLean prepare for a potential polygraph exam,”

“Dr. Ford explained in detail what to expect, how polygraphs worked and helped McLean become familiar and less nervous about the exam. Dr. Ford was able to help because of her background in psychology,” the letter continued.

The anonymous boyfriend also contradicted Ford’s claims that she is afraid of flying and doesn’t like small spaces.

This case further becomes a she said, they said case. There is not one witness who has come forward to corroborate Dr. Ford’s story, not even the individuals that she claimed were there. This also includes Ford’s friend. In fact she states she never met Brett Kavanaugh.

Polls Show Dead Heat in 2018 Menendez-Hugin New Jersey Senate Race

BLUE WAVE? DEMOCRATS ARE IN DEAD HEAT RACE IN NEW JERSEY …

As reported at the Politico, Democratic incumbent Sen. Bob Menendez is in a dead heat with Republican challenger Bob Hugin. Menendez leads 45 percent to Hugin’s 43 percent. That seems almost too unbelievable to be true. However, many polls at RCP show the race really is tight and within the margin of error. The MSM is focusing on states like Texas and Tennessee where they think/hope/wish Democrats will pick up red state senate seats. However, they might want to take a look at states that the Dems thought were safe. A Bob Hugin victory would be the shock of the 2018 midterm elections.

Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez is in a dead heat with Republican challenger Bob Hugin, according to a Stockton University poll released Monday, as the public’s negative view of the senator’s recent corruption trial weighs down his support.

The poll of 531 likely voters shows Menendez with 45 percent support to Hugin’s 43 percent — a difference well within the poll’s margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Menendez, who survived a six-week corruption trial late last year when the jury deadlocked, would normally skate to reelection given President Donald Trump’s deep unpopularity in New Jersey and the state’s normal Democratic tilt. New Jersey has not elected a Republican to the U.S. Senate since 1972.

But Hugin, a recently retired pharmaceutical executive with a vast personal fortune, has poured millions of dollars from his own pocket into the race. He spent much of the summer running TV ads attacking Menendez over his ethics record, and the Senate Ethics Committee’s severe admonishment of him.

Roughly 59 percent of voters say the corruption charges against Menendez are an “extremely important” or “significant” factor in their vote, according to the poll. But 51 percent say the same about the way Hugin profited off his company’s cancer drug.

Menendez is viewed favorably by just 30 percent of voters and unfavorably by 54 percent. Hugin, by contrast, is viewed favorably by 34 percent and unfavorably by 21 percent, but a plurality — 43 percent — aren’t familiar with him.

Senate GOP Agrees to One Week Delay on Kavanaugh Supreme Court Confirmation for FBI Probe

OKAY, BUT WHAT WILL DEMS DO WHEN THE FBI COMES UP WITH NOTHING?

The Senate Republicans have agreed to a one week delay on the SCOTUS vote for judge Brett Kavanaugh in order for the FBI to do a limited probe on allegations of sexual misconduct. What will Democrats do when the FBI finds bupkis? When the FBI clears Kavanaugh and says there is no there, there, will any of the Democrat on the judiciary committee change their vote? Of  course not.

•  Republicans in the Senate have agreed to delay a vote on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation for one week to allow for an FBI probe into allegations of sexual misconduct against the judge, according to a statement issued by the Senate Judiciary Committee Friday.
• “The supplemental FBI background investigation would be limited to current credible allegations against the nominee and must be completed no later than one week from today,” the statement said.
• The agreement reached Friday will hand over to the White House a final decision on whether the FBI conducts an investigation, though the president has signaled his willingness to go along with the GOP leadership.

Senate Republicans have agreed to delay a vote on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation for one week to allow for an FBI probe into allegations of sexual misconduct against the judge, according to a statement issued by the Senate Judiciary Committee Friday.

The committee requested that the White House “instruct the FBI to conduct a supplemental FBI background investigation with respect to” Kavanaugh’s nomination, the statement said.

The president agreed in short order. In a tweet posted by White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders Friday afternoon, the president said had ordered a supplemental investigation that would be “limited in scope and completed in less than one week.”

Democrats, be very careful what you ask for.

Who honestly thinks this is going to change Democrats minds on Kavanaugh. Even if he is cleared by the FBI, Democrats will obstruct.  Two red state Democrats announce opposition to Kavanaugh, Sens. Joe Donnelly of Indiana and Jon Tester of Montana.