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 28, 2018 01:42 PM UTC
19 Comments
Well, Sen. John Kennedy got Judge Kavanaugh on record as not only swearing the witness oath at the beginning of the session, but swearing to God that the allegations were untrue. Surely THAT ought to be convincing.
/s
Flake's giving himself, Murkowski and Collins cover to vote yes while maintaining the veneer of bipartisanship/objectivity. That way Kavanaugh gets a clean win (no Pence tiebreaker vote needed) regardless of whether or not Dem Senators Manchin and Heitkamp jump ship.
I don't know about bipartisanship but after getting a report from FBI, if it contains nothing more damaging than what is already out there, Flake et alia can claim objectivity and then vote to confirm.
He may have spared his colleagues from making complete fools of themselves and ramming Kavanaugh's nomination through confirmation with the shadow if these allegations always hanging over him. (They will hang over him anyway but a non-damaging FBI report gives him and the GOP some plausible cover.)
Not much chance of a nondamaging FBI report. When you see one mouse there are always others.
I'm wondering what scenario is worse for GOP turnout – Kavanagh confirmed, or pulled and another nominee named prior to midterms?
Especially if Mark Judge, who has agreed to cooperate with the FBI investigation confirms Kavanaugh's real life drinking was the inspiration for Bart O'Kavanaugh
Judge is clearly a fragile flower who's very triggered by the prospect of testimony under oath and as a result has retreated to his safe space. It's possible that he'll say something damning in a face-to-face interview with FBI agents, which I imagine will be a bit more stressful than signing his name to a brief letter penned by his lawyer.
But hey, if the investigation REALLY goes south for Kavanaugh, he'll just withdraw and return to his safe, comfy position on he D.C. Circuit, while the GOP worships him as a martyr.
It's a win-win for the Flakes, Murkowskis and Collinses of the world, who either get to vote yes or don't have to vote at all.
Trump then nominates Thomas Hardiman, which he should have done in the first place.
kinda depends on the 2nd choice
Judge Moore?
Michael Cohen?
Rudi?
wait, who was that woman Bush wanted… Harriett Meir? or the one from Trump university who put up all those US Attorneys
The smart money is on Judge Judy.
Judge Jeanne Pirro.
I’m joking, but for Trump, this probably looks like an awesome choice.
Nominating a female judge minimizes the risk of a sex scandal lurking in the history, but there is no guarantee that they’re even halfway sane.
Back in July, before Kavanaugh was announced, one of trump’s sons suggested Jeanine Pirro.
perfect
What a day. Historic. I was so busy at work I had no idea something so dramatic was happening. I'll be catching up.
Wendy's Libtard Comix always comes through for me.
For those of you of a more classical bent, there is
On Saturday afternoon, there are dueling stories about what the White House has done (or not done) about limiting the investigation. General agreement is a limit to "credible claims" which apparently pull Blasey Ford and Ramirez in, leaves Sweatnick out. Lots of dispute about whether the FBI will be limited to interviews with principle people, or if they will be allowed to pursue other evidence (e.g., Judge's employment records at Safeway). More dispute about whether ancillary people may be interviewed or not – especially about the Yale experience described by Ramirez.
Lots of comments about how the White House is being too restrictive, thus having a "show" of an investigation. More comments on whether the FBI is being allowed to do what they want to do on the two claims that directly implicate Kavanaugh (which Sweatnick, as far as I've read, does not). Some follow-up about what happens if the White House DOES have strict limits on it, and it doesn't agree with the expectations of Sen. Flake.
Why no interviewing Avanetti’s client? Have they given a reason?
Speculation I've seen is that the background "re-opening" is limited to "credible accusations" against Kavanaugh. The Avanetti client, Sweatnick, alleges rape but cannot identify Kavanaugh as one of the participants. She says there were other parties and other women who were incapacitated (though doesn't give names, dates or locations). She says Kavanaugh was standing with other men outside the doors (which is scarcely actionable).
If the FBI finds evidence of a crime, they will pursue it until it is resolved. The President cannot legally interfere because that would be obstruction of justice.
The FBI may or may not be definitively able to prove or disprove any of the sexual assault allegations. But they can damn sure prove that Kavanaugh is a lying ass.
For example, Kavanaugh's lying to the FBI repeatedly (on his background checks to be a Circuit judge) is a Federal crime, with plenty of evidence going back 12 years. He's also lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee, again, provably. The FBI investigates Federal crimes, and the President cannot limit the scope of those investigations.
This is not a criminal investigation — it is specifically a re-opening of the background investigation.
And as best I can figure, the "lying on a background investigation" is rarely pursued as a primary offense. If the feds are going after something else, the "false statements" will be an additional charge or the charge that emerges in a plea bargain.
Comey is optimistic about what the FBI can do in a week. And yes, there is still the possibility of criminal charges based on lying on background check. It will depend on where FBI chief Chris Wray wants to take it. By repute, Wray is a nonpartisan straight arrow who has defied Trump before.
If perjury charges are not forthcoming now, those and more could proceed when Dems retake the House in November. Some Congresspeople are already looking to that possibility, if Kavanaugh is confirmed.