CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
September 18, 2018 03:54 PM UTC
13 Comments
Perhaps it won't be a visual at all. Christine Blasey Ford has not yet responded to the committee's invitation to appear before the committee this coming Monday. Brett Kavanaugh responded immediately to the invitation.
Democrats have objected to the format of having just Kavanaugh and Ford as witnesses. The only other possible material witness would be Mark Judge, Kavanaugh's friend, who Ford has stated witnessed the alleged assault. In a letter through his attorney, Judge does not want to speak publicly about the matter.
Judge states in the letter "In fact, I have no memory of this alleged incident. Brett Kavanaugh and I were friends in high school but I do not recall the party described in Dr. Ford's letter. More to the point, I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes."
UPDATE: Ford has now stated through her attorney that she will not appear in front of the committee unless the FBI conducts a full investigation, which of course would delay a vote on Kavanaugh for an indeterminate time. The Dems real objective of delay in this matter is now laid bare, since Feinstein had this information in July (when it could have been investigated by the FBI then) and yet sat on it until after the hearings.
There are other ways to look at the situation than "Dems real objective of delay in this matter is now laid bare". The rush to confirmation was always suspect – clearly a partisan Republican strategy, and a way for *rump to make sure of having a "friendly" on SCOTUS to say that the President is above the law.
I do think that Feinstein should have acted on this earlier, but given that the accuser wanted to stay anonymous at that time, Feinstein may have calculated that it would be a net loss in terms of discrediting Kavanaugh, and that there were stronger bases for discrediting him: withholding records of his time with Bush, his probable anti-Roe v Wade stance, lying under oath as a district judge, etc.
There absolutely should be a full FBI investigation prior to a circus like the Anita Hill / Clarence Thomas hearing. Other women are probably going to come forward, as well.
The letter from Ford's attorney urging a full FBI investigation also offered to talk with Grassley and Feinstein about how Ford can appear while protecting her family. Presumably, Ford and her attorney would also like to know the format of a proposed appearance (one article I read said there was a proposal that the two appear in the committee room at the same time). There was no clarity about what sort of statement would be expected or description of the format of follow-up questioning.
In short, an emailed invitation to appear (apparently sent multiple times) is not the final word on her appearance.
My concern, given Hatch's and Grassley's continuing presence on the committee, is that Kavanaugh will have softball questions lobbed at him, while she will be subjected to a murder board.
They have also sent Orrin Hatch out to do his hatched job on Ford by announcing before hearing anything that he doesn't believe her
It is like he is recycling the talking points from the 1991 confirmation hearing
Ugh.
He and Grassley, last holdovers from that embarassing chapter of our past, still repeating their past mistaken actions.
Sorry, but Dem acquiescence in the Merrick Garland thievery cannot he ignored. This is a new fight and they had better keep fighting and quit giving Unanimous Consent to McConnell and Trump.
Following Zappatero's strategy may mean that the Dems lose senate seats, in November, in North Dakota, Indiana, West Virginia, and maybe Missouri. And same strategy may lead to Repubs keeping toss-up senate seats in Arizona and Nevada.
In Zappy World that is not a problem, CHB. Symbols are more important than substance.
Better to have 45 (or even 40) hard-core LWNJ's making noise than a coalition of 51 center/left Democrats and independents making policy.
Kavanaugh is toast. At least the next nominee probably will be less sure that Trump is immune to any legal enforcement.
If Kavanaugh is blocked, the next nominee may be Amy Barrett. That is how Trump will react.
The strategy is pretty clear at this point. The GOP postponed the Senate Judiciary Committee vote and scheduled a new hearing at which both Dr. Ford and Kavanaugh were invited to testify. Of course, the GOP was well aware that their Einsatzgruppen would spring into action, which they did by harassing and death-threatening Ford and her family quite literally right out of their residence.
So now Monday's Judiciary Committee hearing will consist of Kavanaugh giving his version of Clarence Thomas's 1991 "high tech lynching" speech, followed by a quick vote sending the nomination to the full Senate.
The GOP line will be, "Hey, we gave Ford a chance to speak, but then she started attaching conditions and making demands, clearly for the sole purpose of delay."