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.

President Trump Meets With Key Senators Ahead of His Nomination for New Supreme Court Justice

RED STATE DEMOCRAT SENATORS IN A TOUGH PLACE FOR SCOTUS VOTE …

As reported at CNN, President Donald Trump met with key senators at the White House on Thursday ahead of President Trump’s nomination of the next Supreme Court Justice.  Trump met with three red-state Senate Democrats who are all facing tough re-election fights this year in states that Trump won easily in the 2016 elections: Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota. Trump won West Virginia, Indiana and North Dakota, 68.6% – 26.5%,  57.2% – 37.9% and 64.1% – 27.7%, respectively. These Democrat Senators are between a rock and a hard place. President Trump has already begun going to states with important Senate elections in 2018 and telling the voters he needs more GOP Senators to pass his agenda and continue to mane America great again. All three of these Senators voted in favor of President Trump’s previous SCOTUS nominee Neil M. Gorsuch. The vote is expected to be prior to the 2018 midterm elections which means if these Senators hgave any hope of winning, they will have to vote in favor of Trump’s SCOTUS nominee, or face a sure loss this November.

President Trump also met with moderate, pro-choice Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins, of Maine, as well as Chuck Grassley of Iowa. All, also voted in favor of Gorsuch. President Trump is putting his ducks in a row and making sure he has the votes. However, what type of pressure will Democrat Senate Majority Leader  Schumer put on Democrats to resist Trump’s nominee, no matter who it is?

President Donald Trump met with key senators at the White House on Thursday as the administration goes into a full-court press to nominate and confirm a new Supreme Court justice before the midterm elections next fall.

Trump met with three red-state Democrats who are all facing tough re-election fights this year: Sens. Joe Manchin, of West Virginia, Joe Donnelly, of Indiana, and Heidi Heitkamp, of North Dakota. The meetings came a day after Justice Anthony Kennedy announced he’ll retire on July 31. The White House plans to nominate a new justice by July 9, CNN reported earlier Thursday.

Trump also met with Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski, of Alaska, Susan Collins, of Maine, and Chuck Grassley, of Iowa. White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said Trump’s team also talked with a dozen other senators.

“Tonight President Trump met with Senators Grassley, Collins, Murkowski, Manchin, Donnelly, and Heitkamp to discuss the Supreme Court vacancy,” Sanders said in a statement. “The President’s team also talked with more than a dozen other Senators today as part of ongoing outreach to get views and advice from both sides of the aisle on this important nomination.”

All three Democratic senators are facing tough votes when Trump nominates a replacement for Kennedy. Their states went overwhelmingly for Trump in 2016 and a vote against the President’s nominee to the court could end up costing them votes from Trump supporters they would have needed to stay in office.

Heitkamp, who was previously praised by Trump as a “good woman” before he campaigned against her in North Dakota on Wednesday, said following the meeting that she’s still willing to hear him out on his court choice.
“Political speeches are just that, but the next day, I’m ready to get to work. As I said, if the President wants to meet with me, I’m ready to participate and advocate for North Dakota. And that’s exactly what happened today,” she said.

As Politico reports, if Trump nominates a woman to the SCOTUS, will that be a game changer? Will it really matter? Female justices can be pro-life too. President Trump said that his nominee will come from his previous released list of 25. This means that Democrats cannot whine about Trump rushing too fasy because they already had the list and would have been previously vetted when Gorsuch was chosen.

No matter whom President Donald Trump picks for the Supreme Court this time around, the nominee is almost certain to come under withering liberal attack as a grave threat to women’s rights. Several conservatives close to the White House, however, say they know just how to blunt that looming assault: Pick a woman for the job.

Of the 25 people on Trump’s public list of potential nominees, six are women. Four — 10th Circuit Judge Allison Eid, 6th Circuit Judge Joan Larsen, Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces Judge Margaret Ryan and 7th Circuit Judge Diane Sykes — were on lists released during the 2016 presidential campaign. Two — 7th Circuit Judge Amy Barrett and Georgia Supreme Court Justice Britt Grant — were added last November.

Justice Anthony Kennedy handed President Donald Trump and the Republicans a major midterm gift by retiring now. Maybe he thinks this is a make up for all of the swing vote decisions that he made when he sided with the liberals on the court. Justices Kennedy’s decision to retire has put further pressure on the other US Senate races like in Missouri, Montana and Florida where Democrat Sens. Claire McCaskill, Jon Tester and Bill Nelson find themselves in tough battles. These three Democrat Senators did not vote for Gorsuch. Trump won these states in the 2016 elections by 19.1, 20.5 and 1.3 percentage points, respectively.

Make no mistake, the Democrats will be viscous and vile this time around. As if they had been civil in the past. The comical part about this is that Democrats are demanding that trump pick a comparable nominee similar to moderate Justice Kennedy. Ha, like that would have occurred had Hillary Clinton won the election.  Elections do have consequences and to all the never-Trumpers, with two SCOTUS pics in less than a year, you need to sit down and shut up at this point. With regards to Democrats demanding that Trump pick a moderate like Kennedy, do you honestly think that when Reagan picked Kennedy, he ever thought that Kennedy would side so much with the liberals on the Court?

Former FBI Director James Comey Admits that He Leaked Memos … Did Comey Violate Laws In Leaking The Trump Memo? (VIDEO)

JUST WHO COMMITTED THE CRIME?

In one of the most damning moments of from Thursday’s Senate Intelligence Committee hearing during questioning from Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), former FBI director James Comey admitted that he leaked the Trump memo. Legal scholar and analyst Jonathon Turley asked the question, did Comey violate the law when he leaked this Trump memo to his friend, Columbia Law School Professor Daniel Richman, and directed him to leak it to the media? Like clockwork, the leaked memo showed up in the New Your Times.

Comey admitted that leak after Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, asked him why he kept those memos, and then asked if he ever shared any of them outside the Department of Justice.

Comey replied by saying that after Trump hinted on Twitter that he might have tapes of discussions between the two men, he thought it made sense to release his memo, and admitted he was hoping it would create the need for special counsel.

Via Jonathon Turley:

One of the most interesting new disclosures today in the Comey hearing was the admission by former FBI Director James Comey that he intentionally used a “friend” on the Columbia law faculty to leak his memos to the media.  Comey says that he did so to force the appointment of a Special Counsel. However, those memos could be viewed as a government record and potential evidence in a criminal investigation.

Notably, Columbia Law School Professor Daniel Richman on a faculty webpage reads that he is “currently an adviser to FBI Director James B. Comey.” Richman specializes in criminal law and criminal procedure.

The problem is that Comey’s description of his use of an FBI computer to create memoranda to file suggests that these are arguably government documents.  Comey admitted that he thought he raised the issue with his staff and recognized that they might be needed by the Department or Congress.  They read like a type of field 302 form, which are core investigatory documents.

The admission of leaking the memos is problematic given the overall controversy involving leakers undermining the Administration. Indeed, it creates a curious scene of a former director leaking material against the President after the President repeatedly asked him to crack down on leakers.

Besides being subject to Nondisclosure Agreements, Comey falls under federal laws governing the disclosure of classified and nonclassified information.  Assuming that the memos were not classified (though it seems odd that it would not be classified even on the confidential level), there is 18 U.S.C. § 641 which makes it a crime to steal, sell, or convey “any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof.”

RINO Maine Senator Susan Collins Says She Might Support Hillary Clinton … Really You Would Support Someone Who Broke Federal Law?

EVER WANNA KNOW WHY THEY CALL THEM RINO’S …

Have you ever wondered why it seems the Republican party does don’t stand up to Democrats and Barack Obama? Have you ever wondered why the GOP party does not seem to represent you nor the Republican party platform? Look no further than the liberal Republicans in the party like Sen. Susan Collins from Maine who stated she would not ruling out supporting Hillary Clinton. UNREAL. Welcome to the RINO’s that have destroyed the GOP. Who the hell in their right mind could call themselves a Republican and then state, I want to continue another 4 more years of Obama, 4 more years of this pathetic economy, 4 more years of increasing the debt to out of control numbers? What Republican would allow a lib like Hillary Clinton select 2, maybe even 3 Supreme Court Justices? Are you frigging nuts Se. Collins? Do us a favor, just change parties or retire. Oh and by the way, are the comments that Trump made about a La Raza (The Race) judge really worse than the actions Hillary Clinton took as Sec. of State and her private email server when she broke federal laws, Federal Records Act (18 U.S. Code § 2071)?

But no matter how much they have condemned Trump, none of these high-ranking Republicans have said that they would consider supporting his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton.

In an interview with me, on Wednesday, Senator Susan Collins, of Maine, made herself the exception. Collins told me that Trump’s comment about Curiel was “an order of magnitude more serious” than anything he had previously said, including his “troubling insults towards individuals” and “his poorly-thought-out policy plan about banning Muslims from entering this country.”

She added that she was faced with an unprecedented political decision and had to keep all options open. “This is a difficult choice, and it’s one, like many of my colleagues, that I am struggling with,” Collins said. “It’s not like we have perfect candidates from whom to choose in this election.”

Collins went on to say that she has not ruled out supporting Clinton. “I worked very well with Hillary when she was my colleague in the Senate and when she was Secretary of State,” Collins said. “But I do not anticipate voting for her this fall. I’m not going to say never, because this has been such an unpredictable situation, to say the least.”

US Senator Susan Collins (ME-R) Says IRS Bias Revelations that They Targeted Specific Political Organizations Will Only Fuel Government Distrust … “Disappointing that the President hasn’t Personally Condemned This”

US Senator Susan Collins (ME-R) was on CNN’s ‘State of the Union’ with Candy Crowley this morning discussing the recent revelations that the IRS was illegally targeting Conservative organizations like the Tea Party. Collins stated that the IRS’s apology and reasons for targeting Tea Party groups did not pass the smell test. Collins went on to say that the IRS’s actions, “This is truly outrageous. And it contributes to the profound distrust that the American people have in government.” She also stated, ”And I think that it’s very disappointing that the president hasn’t personally condemned this and spoken out.” The president needs to make it crystal clear that this is not acceptable in America. Collins also said she doesn’t believe that the case was a result of just a few “rogue” IRS employees. These comments are coming from A RINO from Maine, hardly the right wing.

President Barack Obama found time to condemn the police in Cambridge, MA when Obama acted “poorly” and he found the time to condemn how the police initially handled the case of the death of Trayvon Martin. But when it comes to Conservative groups, the Tea Party and the IRS acting with an enemies list, the cat has Obama’s tongue.

President Barack Obama should personally condemn the Internal Revenue Service for putting extra scrutiny on conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status, Sen. Susan Collins said Sunday.

The Maine Republican said the disclosure that a government agency would go after groups with “tea party” or “patriot” in their names would only add to a growing sense of mistrust Americans have in their government. She was one of a number of Republicans who blasted the IRS on Sunday’s talk shows.

“This is truly outrageous. And it contributes to the profound distrust that the American people have in government. It is absolutely chilling that the IRS was singling out conservative groups for extra review. And I think that it’s very disappointing that the president hasn’t personally condemned this and spoken out,” Collins told CNN chief political correspondent Candy Crowley on “State of the Union.”

Rep. Mike Rogers, who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, called for a full investigation of the IRS’ practices.

“I don’t care if you’re a conservative, a liberal, a Democrat or a Republican, this should send a chill up your spine,” Rogers said on “Fox News Sunday.”

A congressional investigation would probe who knew what and when, Rep. Darrell Issa told CNN Sunday. Issa is the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight.

“The fact is if you’re doing something and it’s wrong, it’s illegal, it’s the kind of thing that scares the American people to their core, when Americans are being targeted for audits based on their political beliefs, that needs to change,” he said.