Doug Collins Reacts to Pelosi/Lawfare House Impeachment Inquiry Resolution…

Ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Doug Collins, appears on Fox News with Laura Hannity to discuss the politically constructed House impeachment resolution.

This entry was posted in Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Conspiracy ?, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Election 2020, Impeachment, Legislation, media bias, Nancy Pelosi, Notorious Liars, President Trump, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Ukraine, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

56 Responses to Doug Collins Reacts to Pelosi/Lawfare House Impeachment Inquiry Resolution…

  1. The Akh says:

    Lol, Laura Hannity…

    Liked by 18 people

    • GumboPot says:

      Laura Hannity fits because they don’t let their guest finish a thought. The talking over guest makes me turn the channel. Laura is not as bad as Hannity but the disease appears to be contagious.

      Liked by 15 people

    • Raptors2020 says:

      Congratulations on your wedding, Laura! I hope it’s not because, Tick Tock, a baby is due..

      Liked by 1 person

      • Marc says:

        No offense, but at her age, I hope she’s not having another kid. Too many complications for the child since the eggs are well past their prime.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Bigly says:

          Omg that’s obnoxious. 20 years ago had 3 babies , wife started at 38. Eggs don’t rot. Jesus.

          Liked by 1 person

          • TwoLaine says:

            TY. It’s the schooling and indoctrination these days. Sad. 😉

            Liked by 1 person

          • Adorable deplorable says:

            She is 56 so that is a bit old!

            Liked by 1 person

          • Marc says:

            It’s not obnoxious, just basic biology.

            “As we age, our eggs age, too.

            Our eggs are with us from before birth—and we never make any new ones. As eggs age, they are more likely to contain chromosomal abnormalities created during the division process (meiosis)—little mistakes in the new copy of their DNA. Because the DNA is essentially the “instruction booklet” for a cell, chromosomal abnormalities can result in the cell not doing what it’s supposed to do—in the case of the egg, making a healthy baby.

            Egg quality is not a spectrum. An individual egg is either genetically normal (euploid) or genetically abnormal (aneuploid). An abnormal egg usually won’t fertilize. If it does, it has a higher likelihood of resulting in an early miscarriage or, in rare cases, genetic disorders such as Down Syndrome. (That’s why we see an increase in infertility, miscarriage, and genetic disorders in women over 35.)”


        • ezpz2 says:

          Kind of a moot point. At her age of 56, the oven is likely closed and if there is an unlikely stray egg, it has nowhere (within) to rise. Pardon the implied comparison to dough, yeast, and bread.


      • AT says:

        If you were a little more informed you would know that all three of her children are adopted. That she is single. That she is a devout Catholic. That she almost died from breast cancer.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Justice says:

      I like Laura Hannity and her distinguished husband Sean. But, I’m unable to bear watching either of them or listening to their radio shows. In our area, we turn to Dave Ramsey to avoid Hannity during the day.

      And why is Rush Limbaugh stuck in the 90s? He still treats us like we don’t know anything. We have the internet now Rush, so calm down with your “Do not doubt me on this folks!”

      We have working modems on our Commodore 64 and Apple II computers so we’ve read the news already, Rusty.

      Liked by 7 people

  2. Ghost says:

    Question From a Smaller Limb.

    Any thoughts on how this will play out in the off year elections next week? In which states are there real opportunities to get the actual pulse of the American voter?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Magabear says:

      Here in PA. we have all the county commisioner races up for the vote. Will be a decent reflection of where things are at in this state.

      Liked by 1 person

    • TreeClimber says:

      Technically SC has municipal elections but as a former election worker, far far fewer voters turn out for those (and we’re apparently a schizophrenic lot, anyway.)

      Did see a dude in a Trump hat coming out the DMV today, though!

      Liked by 10 people

    • Julian says:

      The Swamp is voting next week and unfortunately the Swamp could be about to claim its second state as a victim.

      Maryland fell long ago (Governor RINO Hogan notwithstanding), but Virginia is on the verge of falling, being re-districted in 2020, and wiping out Republicans for decades.

      The Swamp Counties (Loudoun, Fairfax & Prince William) have WON 6/7 Virginia Commonwealth Elections in 2012-2018.

      The only exception? 2018 when Tim Kaine would have won even without the Swamp against Corey Stewart.


  3. T2020 says:

    Do a sit-in, House Republicans!!!’ Fight this UNCONSTITUTIONAL farce!!!! It’s a political stunt and should be stopped immediately!!!

    Liked by 2 people

  4. California Joe says:

    Doug and his Republican House colleagues need to give up on dealing with the Democrats and go knock some sense into Mitch and the Senate Republicans to end the dumpster fire by simply stating publicly and loudly to Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler and the news media that any impeachment charge is DOA in the Senate so they are wasting their time and taxpayers $$$$. End it now, Doug!

    Liked by 6 people

  5. citizen817 says:

    Not Laura Hannity…

    Liked by 3 people

  6. GB Bari says:

    Not a word about Vindman’s allegations that the official transcript is missing critical words (that of course involved the “real” quid pro quo….) that Vindman supposedly heard and tried to get edited into (more accurately, tried to manipulate) the transcript, but the transcript was locked away quickly and his request was ignored.

    That’s what the NYT is claiming in the article to which Sundance linked in the “Sketchy…” earlier article. No one is mentioning that in these Fox interviews.

    Curious, since that’s a pretty damning admission that he (Vindman) tried to change the transcript…. Didn’t the Republicans inside the Star Chamber hear that?

    Liked by 9 people

    • ezpz2 says:

      Lies by omission are often more egregious than blatant lies.

      To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld:

      ‘We don’t know what we don’t know.’

      Therefore, we can’t fact check or refute.

      Liked by 1 person

      • GB Bari says:

        At that point, it comes down to the credibility of the witness which is and should be affected by known examples of his/her bias for or against the defendant.

        Liked by 1 person

  7. Rynn69 says:

    Laura Hannity and Sean Ingraham – Tune in to Fox PRIMETIME. So true, SD, so dang true.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Austin Holdout says:

      Meanwhile, I recorded Tucker to watch after the Astros game and he had a good show as usual, including the first part of a 2 part series on “Who would be impacted by gun confiscation” filmed in Detroit. The chief of police there says most violent crimes happen in about 1 minute, not enough time for the police to get there even if you were able to call. 1 in 10 people there have concealed carry permits. A guest said her daddy taught her “better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6”. Sorry, only tangentially on topic.


  8. Mike in a Truck says:

    Another whiporrills butt hole talking.See the pattern? That’s all Repubs do.Thats all they know how to do. Get their faces on the news at all costs.They fight with Queensbury Rules and the Communist Democrats use Viet Cong tactics.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. teabag14 says:

    Sometimes worn out phrases from Hannity & Limbaugh bring me the comfort of the familiar. My heart is often troubled these days & I doubt everyone & everything (with the very notable exception of VSGPDJT). To be given just a quick moment to believe that we will survive this constant, evil, hateful, unrelenting assault on the very foundation of our country feels pretty good. My brain feels like it’s in an agitator style washing machine most of the time. 😓


  10. dawg says:

    Well, Im completely confused. Can someone please explain what their endgame is?

    If the House wants to impeach the President, they can just go ahead and do it. Hold the vote, simple majority, done. Why are they even bothering with changing all the rules?

    Why does it even matter if the House Republicans or the Executive Branch can call witnesses, question witnesses or defend the Pres at all? If the Dems have the votes to impeach, and want to actually do that, they are just going to ignore anything coming from the Rs anyway.

    If Sundance is trying to just inform everyone of the Ds destruction of the impeachment process, then ok. But Im just not seeing what their specific endgame actually is.

    50 R senators have publicly said this whole thing is bogus, so what is the Dem House really trying to achieve?


    • molson309 says:

      While they’d like to find something they can actually use to remove PDJT from office, they’ll settle for emitting a non ending series of innuendo, accusations and lies in order to drive his approval numbers down. With the help of the media they figure it just might work.

      They know they can’t beat him straight up…

      Liked by 1 person

    • Bryan Alexander says:


      The Dems and a sizeable portion of the GOP want Trump gone. But it is a political calculation. Trump won. And they know that in the places Trump won his support is NOT slipping.

      They are trying to use the Main Stream Media to “innuendo” Trump to defeat.

      They know that they don’t have 67 votes in the Senate to remove him. They are trying to every way imaginable to throw dirt on Trump to move the 20 or so Senators over to the “Convict” side. That is why they are continually using the media shape the narrative.

      The House of Representatives voting to Impeach Trump and the Senate voting “No” would be a HUGE defeat for the Democrats. They would certainly lose the House. They won’t vote “Yes” unless they can create the conditions where Trump is convicted OR the vote is so close that their Impeachment vote in the House is seen as justified.

      Believe me, there are 20 GOP Senators looking at the polls and calculating whether they can get re-elected if they vote to remove Trump. THAT is what the Democrats are trying to do – Move the polls enough to convince the fence-sitting Senators to convict Trump and remove him.


      • dawg says:

        Ok, I agree with a lot of that, but Im not sure that the Ds even think they can actually provide enough cover for those R Senators to vote for impeachment.

        Sundance said that its extremely important that we get the word out on how the Democrats are perverting the impeachment process. But why?

        Does he think they are going to actually hold a vote and impeach him? And then, if they do, does he think the Senate will convict?

        I dont think we are anywhere near 20 R senators having the political cover to vote to impeach, or even thinking they might have the cover to do so.

        If they (the Dems) were somehow able to construct that environment, it would take years, and by that time, PT will be on his way out of office and thus it wouldnt even really be worth it considering the political toll it would take on them.

        I tend to think they are just mounting a pre-emptive defense. When the IG stuff comes out, when Durham makes indictments, etc… they need to be able to say that its all in response to their “impeachment”. They want to be able to say that the legitimate investigation into spygate, the origins, etc… is political retribution and an attempt to distract from the “impeachment”.

        The Ds are going to drag out the process as much as possible, attempting to get as much dirt (from Mueller dossier, etc…)and make it look as bad as possible for Trump, in order to make the narrative more believable. That narrative being the IG report, Durham investigation, etc…is all just in response to the impeachment, because its getting so intense.

        Indeed, thats almost exactly what Clapper said in response to the news of the investigation going criminal, that “im curious about the timing of it, considering the heat is ramping up on the impeachment blah blah blah”


        • babrightlight says:

          The battle tactics may be like the Ali-Foreman fight. Ali went rope-a-dope for the early rounds while Foreman flailed away, throwing lots of punches but almost none landed. Then when Foreman was exhausted, Ali lit him up and knocked him out.

          It’s frustrating to not see us fight back, but this charade is going nowhere. Nancy is afraid to pull the trigger on an actual Impeachment vote so they throw punches in this “inquiry” which do not land. Eventually, they will run out of steam–like how much analysis can you have when you have the transcript? I think the IG report has been delayed until this dies down. It will be the jab that sets up the killer right hand–Durham making some indictments and the dominoes start to fall. Doubt it will happen this year, but hopefully Q1 2020 we’ll see some criminals hit the canvas.


          • dawg says:

            “I think the IG report has been delayed until this dies down.”

            And I think all this process crap is an attempt to stretch this thing out and give it life UNTIL the IG report comes out……

            “Durham making some indictments”

            … they can THEN say, “See, this is all political retribution for our oh so very serious official impeachment inquiry resolution proceeding hearing!”


    • neal s says:

      While the dems are not actually certain of what their endgame is, we can make some overall guesses as to their general strategy and goals.

      If there were a real impeachment, the dems know that PDJT would ably defend himself in the senate trial. Because support for PDJT is so high, they know if they actually did a real impeachment, that many who were visibly against PDJT would wind up suffering either in upcoming primaries or general elections and the dems would be at risk of losing their majority in the house. So dems want a sham impeachment where they control everything, and hope to drag things out and to fool people into thinking that PDJT did something wrong.

      The dems are also hoping that they can either manufacture something to accuse PDJT with, or goad him into doing something that they can accuse him with. If nothing else, they will claim that PDJT trying to defend himself is in itself obstruction. While they cannot be certain of what will happen going forward, the dems will be opportunists who will try to twist anything and everything so as to best suit themselves.

      The dems will try to twist any efforts on PDJT’s part to combat corruption, to be partisan attacks on themselves. In short PDJT will be accused of everything that the dems have actually done, and are presently doing.

      The dems want to hold on to their house majority, and want to do everything they can to impede PDJT. So they will avoid ever having a real impeachment, at least until after PDJT gets re-elected, but will try do to everything to accuse and throw dirt in the meanwhile.


      • dawg says:

        I agree. I guess Im trying to understand from where Sundance is coming when he wrote this last sentence……

        “Our united job is to STAND UP and explain this complex non-constitutional process to our friends, family and neighbors.”

        Why? If the Dems dont actually intend to impeach the Pres, why bother explaining their perversion of the process.

        I would think its better to focus on things like the ins-and-outs of why foreign aid is given out in the first place, which is basically a quid pro quo to begin with, and theres nothing wrong with it at all.

        The POTUS is the chief law enforcement officer and its his duty to root out corruption, and NOT doing it would be criminal.

        That treaty with Ukraine establishes a particular relationship with them specifically for the purposes of working together against the corruption.

        If these types of things were established in the minds of the American public, they would just ignore the Dem’s tactics.


        • neal s says:

          At the end of the day, if you convince someone that what PDJT is doing is right, or if you convince them of the unfairness of the fake impeachment, either will help them avoid falling for the dems lies. There is value in them understanding both and each of those ideas.

          When Sundance asks us to do one thing, don’t think that this is to supersede all other things we were asked to do. Don’t think that he means instead of anything else, but in addition to other things.


          • dawg says:

            But by allowing their narrative to fester, they are succeeding in taking the teeth out of any sort of offensive that we can mount. W should be exposing Crowdstrike, the Dems collusion with Ukraine, etc, etc, etc… This faux impeachment is the Dems defense against all that and we are allowing it to work.


            • neal s says:

              Congratulations. You have yourself just explained …

              from where Sundance is coming when he wrote this last sentence……

              “Our united job is to STAND UP and explain this complex non-constitutional process to our friends, family and neighbors.”


              • dawg says:

                I just dont think spending time explaining this complex non-constitutional process is worthwhile. That time should be spent explaining that there is nothing wrong with even what they are ALLEGING PT did in the first place. The complex non-constitutional process isnt going anywhere anyway.


  11. TwoLaine says:

    Why are we even willing to settle for transcripts?


    Liked by 1 person

  12. Mr e-man says:

    Lindsay Graham could stop all this nonsense today. All he has to do is call the same witnesses Schiff calls to testify publicly before his Senate committee the day after they testify in the House Star Chamber.

    Then there would be no selective leaking because it wouldn’t work. We wouldn’t have to worry about Schiff rules at all.

    Why aren’t Graham and McConnell doing that to thwart this impeachment nonsense immediately? Are they wanting Trump to get impeached? I heard Lindsay say Trump would win in a landslide if that happened. Well, Mr Graham, I think Trump should win in a landslide and not have his character and reputation besmirched in the process by a Kangaroo court in the House. You have the power to stop it now. You should get of your ass and stand up for him NOW!

    Liked by 2 people

  13. mikeyboo says:

    I suspect the Democrats are actually afraid for “impeachment” to reach the senate.
    Suppose there were a full blown impeachment hearing in the senate. At that point, all evidence favoring the President and EXPOSING THE SWAMP would be nationally televised. People would see the full scope of corruption-and the big swamp lizards would be entirely unveiled.
    Cartoonists would have a field day picturing naked Clinton, Comey, Brennan, Clapper etc taking arrows in the most vulnerable parts of their anatomy.


  14. HickTick says:

    I am all for a Vote to give the President an Extra four years since they have not allowed him his office . We should start a campaign now to get his years back .


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s