The Senator from Maine was doing a Q & A with CNN’s Dana Bash and was grilled on her alliegence to women with her vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the US Supreme Court….
The below linked piece is from Red State and Conservative political blog,,,,
Yes…
Conservative Blog….
And the author of the piece thinks Collins is scared of what she did and the outcome for her….
Oh, yea…
There is this thing about the over $3 Million already collected to fund someone to run against her in 2020 (Susan Rice maybe?)
screengrab from https://youtu.be/s40D43ndwec
While I’m no greater fan of Susan Collins today than I was last month, I’m glad that she did what any person of integrity should have done and treated the allegations made against Brett Kavanaugh as the unsubstantiated and flimsy stuff that they were. I’m also glad she didn’t force Mike Pence to cast the deciding vote, or worse yet, convince Joe Manchin that he did not want to be the vote that gave Pence that notoriety and vote against Kavanaugh. I don’t think she’s a model of conservatives. I don’t think we can trust her. But we do owe her thanks for that vote.
The real question is what comes next.
Collins was on CNN’s State of the Union with Dana Bash and it was pretty obvious that she’s feeling a lot of heat because of her vote and we don’t know whether that heat will add strength to her resolve or melt her.
Here’s how it starts.
BASH: So, let’s talk a little bit more about those allegations. On the Senate floor, you said — quote — “The facts presented do not mean that Professor Ford was not sexually assaulted that night or some other time.”
But, as you remember, Ford was really clear, under oath, under pain of perjury, that she was 100 percent certain that it was Brett Kavanaugh who sexually assaulted her.
So, given the decision you made, do you not believe her?
COLLINS: Let me say this.
First of all, I found Dr. Ford’s testimony to be heart-wrenching, painful, compelling, and I believe that she believes what she testified to. I don’t think she was coming forth with a political opponent, although I do not think that she was treated well by those who breached her confidence.
But we also had case where Judge Kavanaugh came forward and said, I’m 100 percent certain that this did not happen.
So, here you have two people who are each 100 percent certain of what they’re saying under pain of perjury.
So, then I had to look at the other evidence and was there corroborating evidence? And that’s why I pushed hard for the FBI to do a supplemental background investigation.
BASH: So, do you still think that it is possible that he did it; you
just don’t have the proof to back that up?
COLLINS: I do not believe that Brett Kavanaugh was her assailant.
BASH: So…
COLLINS: I do believe that she was assaulted. I don’t know by whom, and I’m not certain when, but I do not believe that he was the assailant.
BASH: So, people watching you, hearing you say that, you understand that they’ll think that you’re saying you don’t believe her, that she — I know you say that she believed that he was, but maybe she was wrong.
But if she said that under oath, that he said that under oath, you made a decision that he said is more valid than what she said.
COLLINS: In this country, we have a presumption of innocence.
And, as a matter of fairness, what I decided to use as a standard was the question of, is it more likely than not that Brett Kavanaugh assaulted Christine Ford? And there was no corroborating evidence that he did so.
Each of the people that Professor Ford said was present that night have testified under oath, both to the committee, through the declarations that they submitted, and to the FBI now that this — that they have no memory of this happening. And that includes Dr. Ford’s best friend.
BASH: So — and I’m sure you heard this from people who have experienced these assaults — that it is possible — and it’s happened before — that the person who is the victim remembers very clearly, because they were assaulted, and especially when you’re talking about 36 years ago, it’s not unusual for people who were apparently at a party as teenagers, they just don’t remember because it was unremarkable.
Is that possible?
COLLINS: I really don’t think that is possible.
When Christine Ford testified that she ran down the stairs and out the door, surely, her best friend who was there would have followed her and asked her what was wrong. Nobody’s come forward to say, I’m the one who gave you a ride home, or I was the other person at the party.
I’m — I’m not saying that she was not sexually assaulted. I believe that she was and that that horrible experience has upended her life.
But it does not mean that Brett Kavanaugh was her assailant.
Bash quick segues to Donald Trump’s Mississippi speech and points out that Trump said basically the same thing about Ford. Bash asks, “What’s — tell me what the difference is.”
COLLINS: Well, I think there’s a big difference.
BASH: Yes.
COLLINS: I felt that the president was not respectful to Dr. Ford.
I had always been respectful toward her. I’m the one who pushed for a hearing where she could, once her identity was compromised, which was a terrible thing, and not what she wanted — but once that happened and she was willing to come forward, I said she should be given a hearing.
BASH: So, it was the president’s tone more than the words?
COLLINS: It was his tone, but also he’s not involved in the advice- and-consent constitutional duties.
So, I believe he should have said nothing.
By the way, note the chyron on the screen in the image at the top of the page. Nice, huh? From there we go to the Planned Parenthood statement about Collins. CNN’s Bash does a real good job of making it clear that Collins is quite possibly a traitor to all women…..
Sorry james, this may be the dumbest of your posts yet.
I understand that the person running this blog has a different political and ideological outlook than me, but the assertions made here enter crazy territory. Maybe it’s time to move on for me as well?
Ok.. I might be confused what is being written by james and what is being written by person from Red State from which this was linked. That is often a problem in how these posts are structured. I will take responsibility for the confusion.
I may have spoke too soon. What was written by the person at Red State clearly has a sarcastic, “can you believe the media is doing this crap” tone to it, and that clearly makes more sense. They are not attacking Collins at all.
Well, the author is saying they think Collins will do something moving forward on another issue to disappoint them. They agreed with what she did on Kavanuagh.
I don’t know why this was chosen about to post on here. Right-wing bloggers would tend to distrust someone like Collins. Regardless, many have been applauding her the last several days and thought her speech was very well done. (Is Susan Rice going to even move to Maine, a state she has never lived in?)
I disagree that Collins wilted on CNN or did anything other than clearly state her position. Dana Bash did not come across great in the interview, and the reluctant sheepishness from Bash while using the left-wing talking points in trying to question Collins was apparent.
My post is indeed sarcastic and comes as an ironic view posted from the Right ….
The piece reads as it does….
One takes from it what they want…
Collins does seem to be all over the place as in her 45 minute speech in which she WORK’S to find a reason to vote FOR BK like we ALL KNEW she would….
Bash , in my mind, and the in the author of piece’s words, DOES show a woman US Senator rambling to do what the PARTY wants her to do….
In a clear way the piece demonstrate’s the political contortions Republicans have to make to go along…
Bash IS able to make Collins dance because Collins has put herself there…
The author of the piece CG?….
CLEARLY points that out…
And also CLEARLY points out that Collins will have to deal with her actions back home…
THAT comes with the job….
Bash may come across as a left wing WOMEN reporter to you…
But she came across to me and the author it seems as someone asking HARD questions…
And THAT is what she gets paid for….
We obviously disagree, but when it comes to things you write and your blogging style, you never take any sort of responsibility for errors. I don’t think you understood the purpose of the piece you linked to. It wasn’t really something worth linking to at all.
In fact I HAVE admitted when I make mistakes here…
(And DSD and others point them out….When people here make typo’s I correct them)
I also admit often that what I may post is MY View when I write comments….
This is a one man show CG….
I juggle this place among work, play and other things….
I get things wrong just like the people who get paid to do the same thing…
My style IS to link things drawing comments and valitity to my posts like most others who do have access to the access paid media people have…
I work my ass off keeping this place alive to a audience of several hundred and just a few people who carry the comments here….
Some who disagree with the lean of the place have left…
Some who who have tired of the intense drum of politics , which it’s emotional drain have left also…
And some have left because they have frankly been made to feel uncomfortable here…
I have pledged to continue posting here …
Sometimes the post’s are what people like…
Sometimes not…
And I’m gonna make mistake still
But as I have repeated over and OVER?
I’m gonna write it as I see it…
And it’s up you and everyone else to make the choice of if they want come and join the ride ….
And YES?
I sure would like to have MORE people pony up and comment…
I think months ago you made some format changes to the comment sections, which made it much harder to follow, and everyone here, from different political perspectives and amid personal animosities, agreed it was a change for the worse, and you determined at the time, that our opinion did not matter.
That is a major reason why there are even less people then there used to be. Sorry you were not able to get outside your own mindset and be receptive to what everyone else saw as a change for the worse.
This one article is largely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, but if “your post” was sarcastic, that means you are agreeing with the right-wing writer, and I do not think you are. There is some disconnect between your comments which take the piece at face value and the obvious anti-media opinions, bolstered by sarcasm, that the writer intended.
The changes in the format was necessary as I had to shut down the site and rebuild it because of TONS of attacks from bots and trolls…
It cost me time and money and angst…
I has also cost some readership…
I thank those of you here who rode thru the bumpy road with me…
And yes I do agree with the author’s view that Collins is a bit scared and is having trouble explaining how she thought Ford’s story was credible but bought into the GOP talking points to explain her vote with them against a LOT of women who are angry about here parties dealing with sexual misconduct…
I do NOT agree about how she voted…
But I KNEW she would vote party…
She now has to dance with the media and look over her shoulder like the author says
Grassley pledges to raise $3M for Collins after Kavanaugh fight
Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) promised to raise $3 million to support Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) to counteract anger over her vote to confirm Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
“I’m going to help raise $3 million to match that,” Grassley told Marth MacCallum during an interview on Fox News Tuesday, when asked what he thought of a fundraising effort against Collins in Maine that has raked in about $3 million….
More…
Wait. So CG was going off on James for stuff that was actually said by his fellow conservative Republican at Red State? Ha!
The Red State piece (which I do not agree with in its entirety) contained sarcasm. The way it was presented on here, as written by james, made it appear to be actual opinion. He might not have known the difference either.
Maybe I should take the time after lunch to plough through this, but now I’m just too confused to tell what’s what or who thinks what, if it’s even worthwhile trying to figure that out.
I saw at least part of Dana Bash’s interview with Susan Collins on CNN’s Stare of the Union, and another one on (I think) Face the Nation.
Sen. Collins had to be sincere in her motives, since this won’t help her in Maine, any more than Lisa Murkowski’s “present” vote will help Murkowski in Alaska, but Susan Collins certainly didn’t convince me.
If she’d said that the evidence was uncertain, that certainly would have been plausible, but then she should have held out for a supplementary FBI background investigation that was more substantial than the flimsy once-over they did (or were limited to doing) last week.
Happy Indigenous People’s Day !
Here’s CNN’s own story. Evidently (and as I’d suspected) the interview must have been conducted on Saturday (or possibly Friday) before being broadcast on Sunday mornng:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/07/politics/collins-kavanaugh-temperament-planned-parenthood-criticism/index.html