Archive for the ‘Doug Collins’ Category

Bill Barr’s opening statement in his testimony to the House Judiciary Committee won’t be received well by Democrats. Hopefully, though, we won’t be treated to another stunt like Steve Cohen’s chicken stunt, a stunt so stupid that even CNN criticized him. But I digress.

Early in his opening statement, AG Barr will attack Democrats over “the bogus ‘Russiagate’ scandal.” The full context of that collision is found in this paragraph, which says “Ever since I made it clear that I was going to do everything I could to get to the bottom of the grave abuses involved in the bogus ‘Russiagate’ scandal, many of the Democrats on this Committee have attempted to discredit me by conjuring up a narrative that I am simply the President’s factotum who disposes of criminal cases according to his instructions. Judging from the letter inviting me to this hearing, that appears to be your agenda today. So let me turn to that first.”

Later, AG Barr states “The President has not attempted to interfere in these decisions. On the contrary, he has told me from the start that he expects me to exercise my independent judgment to make whatever call I think is right. That is precisely what I have done.”

This hearing will be contentious, filled with lots of fireworks. Because Jerry Nadler isn’t the brightest bulb in the Democrats’ chandelier, it isn’t likely that Democrats will lay a glove on Barr, metaphorically speaking.

It got attention — of course it did. Political stunts in Washington usually do. Videos and photos of Cohen devouring fried chicken ran everywhere, a sign that perhaps the hearing was designed to be more of a farce than a serious inquiry.

The House Judiciary Committee used to be a serious committee. With idiots like Nadler chairing the committee and Cohen acting like a clown, it’s impossible to take these Democrats seriously. That being said, it’s clear that the MSM will do its utmost to prop up these clowns. Here’s the infamous chicken scene:

Republicans, starting with Ranking Member Jim Jordan, former Ranking Member Doug Collins, former Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner and former US Attorney Ken Buck, won’t need propping up. That’s before talking about Louie Gohmert, a former Texas state judge. These are serious people.

Also noteworthy is the fact that Val Demings and Karen Bass are auditioning to be Joe Biden’s running mate. They’ll likely use this opportunity to make their case for the job.

There’s a price that’s getting paid by citizens for liberal permissiveness. Democrats keep making the same mistakes while expecting different results. In NYC, their Democrat City Council voted last night to cut funding to the NYPD by $1,000,000,000. That’s billion with a B. That’s a 17% cut in the NYPD budget. Predictably, violent crime is way up. Predictably, the defund crowd isn’t satisfied. They want more.

This proves an old cliché that says “the gap between more and enough never closes. Put differently, appeasement doesn’t work. The end result of this is a massive uptick in unexpected retirements:

A total of 272 uniformed NYPD officers filed retirement papers between the day George Floyd was killed and June 24, which represents an increase of 49% from the same time period last year.

Expect that many of the officers who planned on starting today for the NYPD will find jobs with other PDs. It’s virtually guaranteed.

In Seattle, Jenny Durkan’s permissiveness cost people their lives. At least 2 young people were murdered and perhaps more lost their lives. While she appeared on CNN to tell Chris Cuomo about Seattle’s “summer of love”, violent crimes increased. This is what Democrat Gov. Jay Inslee said on June 11:

“I spoke with @MayorJenny and her team about the situation on Capitol Hill,” Inslee said in a tweet on June 11. “Although unpermitted, and we should remember we are still in a pandemic, the area is largely peaceful. Peaceful protests are fundamentally American, and I am hopeful there will be a peaceful resolution.”

This morning, police arrested anarchists and retook control of the CHOP/CHAZ Zone. So much for peaceful protests. Rep. Doug Collins, a Republican from Georgia, tweeted this:

It’s sad that it took two deaths for the Seattle mayor to finally realize what we’ve known all along… WE NEED OUR POLICE!
https://t.co/vQW7GvzZDz

— Rep. Doug Collins (@RepDougCollins) July 1, 2020

In Minneapolis, Jacob Frey’s and Tim Walz’s permissiveness led to a week of destruction, which led to entire neighborhoods getting destroyed. Since then, the Powderhorn Park neighborhood has said that it’s ok for homeless people to use the city park. They said that they wouldn’t call the police. That neighborhood’s permissiveness with the homeless has led to the Park becoming a favorite meeting place for drug dealers and their clients. It’s also become a favorite meeting place for johns meeting prostitutes. What a lovely-sounding neighborhood.

This quote is utterly absurd:

Durkan’s order on Wednesday, despite Best’s statement that CHOP was “lawless and brutal,” did praise the people of CHOP, saying “much of the expression has been peaceful and created community solidarity for Black Lives Matter, including features such as a community garden, public art, and conversation corner…”

That’s like saying that the seas that the Titanic dealt with were mostly peaceful except for one ice chunk. That’s like saying that the play where Lincoln was assassinated was a fine event with just one burst of unpleasantness.

The Democrats’ permissiveness has literally gotten people killed. More passivity will only make things worse. The worst news is that Democrats haven’t learned from the Democrats’ passivity.

Now that Speaker Pelosi has caved, Democrats, aka Nancy’s support group, have started spinning things to make it sound like her impeachment delay succeeded. It’s understandable why they’d spin that. They know that she needs to save face to avoid utter humiliation. If she wants to save face, she needs another Botox treatment, not this spin.

Byron York’s article is aptly titled Pelosi caves. In the article, Chuck Schumer is quoted as saying “in the last two weeks, there’s been a cascade of evidence that bolsters the case, strongly bolsters the case, for witnesses and documents.” Consider this the Senate Democrats’ equivalent of House Democrats’ “bombshell testimony” coming from the Schiff Show. Spare me the spin.

During the Schiff Show portion of impeachment, we were told by the corrupt media that that day’s testifiers would provide “bombshell testimony” that would devastate Orange Man Bad. By mid-afternoon each day, that day’s star witness was the one decimated. By the time the Schiff Show transitioned into Nadler’s articles of impeachment hearings, Democrats were sinking fast. Impeachment had backfired to the point that the House Judiciary Committee didn’t bother calling fact witnesses. That’s because Democrats were still looking for a fact witness that wouldn’t hurt them.

There’s speculation that Democrats might try a second round of impeachment. Democrat activists were the only people who took the first round seriously. Why think that anyone would take another round seriously? Doug Collins appears to have this right:

“I believe she finally ran out of options and realized there was no political gain anymore,” Rep. Doug Collins, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said in a text exchange Friday. “The case never changed, and the outcome has not been altered, but it appears to have allowed them to talk more about it and try to influence public opinion away from the show in the House and the inevitable result in the Senate.”

The American people aren’t paying attention. They’re too busy enjoying their bigger paychecks, their latest promotions, their rising wages. They’re too busy taking vacations. Washington pundits are paying attention but that’s about it.

Now, the holdout is apparently coming to an end. A trial will begin. Pelosi will undoubtedly keep trying to mess with the president. But the trial will be out of her hands.

Let’s hope for a quick trial. The Democrats’ House impeachment managers don’t have anything to present except hearsay testimony. The Trump legal team should present the transcript of the Trump-Zelenskiy phone call and the whistle-blower’s complaint to provide a contrast between what actually happened and the Democrats’ gossip. If Democrats succeed in calling witnesses, Republicans should call the whistle-blower as a witness. If he’s called, the Trump legal team should insist that he give up the names of the people who leaked information to him.

Further, we know that John Bolton won’t testify. He might get called but President Trump will exert executive privilege. If Democrats want to challenge that in court, that’s their option. It’s also their option to pound their head into a brick wall. No serious judge will side with the Democrats in forcing the national security adviser testify about classified communications between the president and another head of state. It’s time to put the Democrats’ fiasco in the rear-view mirror.

Though President Trump just got impeached by a bunch of vitriol-filled House Democrats, there’s lots for Republicans to be thankful for. Because Republicans dealt with adversity after adversity after adversity, starting with President Trump, and because Republicans learned from him month-by-month, Republicans end the year stronger than they started the year.

First, this goes far beyond RNC fundraising and Trump rallies, though those are certainly signs of GOP vitality. Anyone who’s watched Nancy Pelosi’s post-impeachment press conference or any of Joe Biden’s debate performances couldn’t possibly mistake them for the vitality displayed at a Trump rally. How can you watch this video, then think that Speaker Pelosi is well?

Here’s the transcript:

We are, we have, I have… When we bring the bill, which is just so you know, there’s a bill made in order by the Rules Committee that we can call up at any time in order to send it to the Senate and to have the provisions in it to pay for the, for the impeachment. And then the next step, and the eh, que, uh… uhl … … whatever you want to call it, the qu uh, the trial.

But I digress from the topic at hand. The topic at hand is how strengthened Republicans are. Throughout the year and before, Republicans rose up and fought back. During the Kavanaugh fight, Lindsey Graham and Susan Collins stepped forward. They became leaders. Thanks to their leadership, Judge Kavanaugh got confirmed and became Justice Kavanaugh.

A year prior to the release of the Mueller Report, Devin Nunes questioned the validity of the opening of the counterintelligence investigation. Shortly thereafter, Adam Schiff put out his own report that essentially said that everything in the Nunes Memo was wrong. When the Horowitz Report was published on Dec. 9, 2019, the Nunes Memo was totally vindicated while the Schiff Memo was rendered total trash. The fight between then-Chairman Nunes and current Chairman Schiff is over. Schiff lost in a trouncing.

As for the House Judiciary Committee, Democrats outnumbered Republicans. This committee provides additional proof that quality is more important than quantity. Justice is chaired by Jerry Nadler, where his chief ‘assistants’ are Zoe Lofgren, Steve Cohen, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Hakeem Jefferies and Eric Swalwell. Meanwhile, Doug Collins could call on talented people like John Ratcliffe, Jim Jordan, Louie Gohmert, Ken Buck, Matt Gaetz and Tom McClintock.

Much needs to be said in praise of Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy. They both showed leadership at the most important times. Sen. McConnell helped confirm dozens of strict constructionist judges to the federal bench. Most recently, Sen. McConnell totally obliterated Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Schiff. To be fair, though, Devin Nunes pretty much softened Schiff prior to Sen. McConnell finishing Schiff off. Here’s how Sen. McConnell addressed Article 2 of impeachment:

“What it really does is impeach the president for asserting executive privilege, a two-century-old constitutional tradition.” Presidents beginning with Washington have invoked it and courts repeatedly have recognized it. The House requested extraordinarily sensitive information—exactly the type of requests against which presidents from both parties have asserted privilege.

“It’s not a constitutional crisis for a House to want more information than a president wants to give up,” McConnell said. “That’s not a constitutional crisis! It’s a routine occurrence. Separation of powers is messy—by design. Here’s what should have happened — either the president and Congress negotiate a settlement or the third branch of government, the judiciary, addresses the dispute between the other two.”

During the Nixon impeachment inquiry, it was discovered that President Nixon told the FBI that they didn’t need warrants to wiretap antiwar protesters. That’s a legitimate constitutional crisis. It isn’t an impeachable offense when a president asserts privilege. In fact, that’s how the Constitution is supposed to work. When there’s a dispute that can’t resolved through negotiations, the judicial branch should settle the dispute:

“Nobody made Chairman Schiff do this,” McConnell said of Schiff’s decision to forego court assistance to overcome the president’s lack of cooperation with the probe. “In Nixon, the courts were allowed to do their work. In Clinton, the courts were allowed to do their work.” But these House Democrats, he added, “decided that due process is too much work.”

McConnell further challenged House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff’s attempt to bully the executive branch out of asserting executive privilege. He quoted Schiff saying, “any action that forces us to litigate … will be considered further evidence of obstruction of justice.”

Saying that a perfectly constitutional solution takes too much time is proof that Democrats were in too much of a hurry. That’s a political consideration. That isn’t a constitutional argument.

As Republicans approach a new year, there are lots of things to be thankful for. 2019 wasn’t a perfect year for the GOP but it was a strong year.

Politicians and pundits are pummeling Speaker Pelosi for yesterday’s impeachment vote. The New York Post’s cover nick-named Ms. Pelosi the “Swamp Mistress” before saying that it’s her funeral. That last shot referenced her wearing a black dress to highlight the solemnity of impeaching President Trump.

Swamp Mommie wasn’t happy when Democrats started applauding President Trump’s impeachment:

Speaker Pelosi would’ve joined in the Democrats’ applause if she were honest with the people. It’s just that the applause got in the way of her solemnity charade that nobody bought.

The contrivance factor was just too thick:

Wearing a funereal black dress, she stood next to a cardboard American flag and recited the Pledge of Allegiance. I would have counted her more honest if she had pledged her allegiance to a Democratic donkey.

Between the black dress and the constant repetition of how Democrats didn’t have a choice and how Democrats did this out of loyalty to the Constitution, it was painfully obvious that there wasn’t a sincere gesture until Democrats started applauding.

At any rate, by last Sept. 24, with the 2020 election fast approaching and her icy relationship with Trump now a bonfire, Pelosi suddenly flip-flopped on impeachment. Her ostensible reason centered on the unverified claims of an anonymous whistleblower regarding Trump’s phone call with the president of Ukraine. The call, she was assured by the media and Rep. Adam Schiff, would amount to a smoking gun.

“The actions of the Trump presidency revealed dishonorable facts of betrayal of his oath of office and betrayal of our national security and betrayal of the integrity of our elections,” she declared.

It felt like a fill-in-the-blank speech, one she had on the shelf ready to go as soon as she had an excuse to use it. Twenty-four hours later, Trump released the transcript of the Ukraine call and it was benign in comparison to her inflammatory accusation. If only Pelosi had waited another day.

Throughout this national ordeal, Pelosi has been portrayed as the adult in the room, the moderate who held back AOC + 3. Pelosi held back AOC + 3 as long as she could but, in the end, they were just too strong. As for Pelosi the moderate, that’s pure BS.

[Democrats] resembled Grade B actors performing for the cameras, their rehearsed references to oaths, prayers, the Founding Fathers, the rule of law, checks and balances and the Constitution itself all sounding contrived. Rather than reflecting actual gravitas, the words were trotted out to create the appearance of it.

There was a display of gravitas yesterday. Unfortunately for Ms. Pelosi, Republicans had strong replies for the Democrats’ frequent smart-alecky jabs. Often, those sharp replies came from battle-tested veterans like Doug Collins, Jim Jordan, Devin Nunes, John Ratcliffe, Louie Gohmert and Jim Sensenbrenner. It’s painfully obvious that Republicans, not Democrats, were the party of gravitas.

The emerging talking point is that last night’s impeachment vote won’t hurt Democrats next November because it was taken months and months ahead of the election. The conventional wisdom is that tons of issues will come and go between this morning and Election Day, 2020. It’s indisputable that people will deal with lots of issues in that time. That doesn’t mean people will forget impeachment, though.

Last night’s vote was a seminal event. Seminal events aren’t forgotten quickly. Republican Mike Kelly captured the moment perfectly in this brief speech:

The reason why the polls have been trending against Democrats is because a) the Democrats’ case is virtually evidence-free and b) the Democrats’ arguments are flimsy. Multiple times Wednesday, Democrats passionately insisted that they needed to impeach President Trump quickly because, otherwise, President Trump would cheat on another election or destroy Western Civilization. Imagine people’s surprise upon hearing that Speaker Pelosi might not send Articles of Impeachment over to the Senate:

Pelosi was then asked about possibly withholding the articles of impeachment from the Senate until they get certain reassurances, and the Speaker refused to give a direct answer. “Again, we’ll decide what that dynamic is, but we hope that the resolution of that process will be soon in the Senate,” she said.

How can Speaker Pelosi wait with the fate our nation hanging in the balance? In her opening speech, Ms. Pelosi said that President Trump represented “an ongoing threat to our national security”:

If Ms. Pelosi doesn’t send those articles of impeachment to the Senate, then she’s either indifferent about “ongoing threats to our national security” or she lied in making that statement. I’m betting the latter.

People don’t like the unfair things that Democrats have done. People don’t like the fact that the Democrats’ arguments keep shifting from one focus group result to another to another. A real case doesn’t morph from one thing into another.

Staying with the possibility of Pelosi not sending articles of impeachment to the Senate, what message does that send? In her post-impeachment press availability, Pelosi said this:

“Let me tell you what I don’t consider a fair trial,” she told the crowd of reporters. “This is what I don’t consider a fair trial — that Leader McConnell has stated that he’s not an impartial juror, that he’s going to take his cues, in quotes, from the White House, and he is working in total coordination with the White House counsel’s office.”

What BS. Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler didn’t let Republicans call any witnesses. During yesterday’s debate, Nadler said that President Trump’s legal team had the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses in the Judiciary Committee hearings. Doug Collins replied, saying “Who would they cross-examine? 3 law professors and a staffer?”

What House Democrats just did shouldn’t be taken seriously. Democrats cut every corner imaginable to prevent a thorough investigation. Truth didn’t matter to Democrats, either. Yesterday, Democrats repeatedly said that “the facts are not in dispute.” Immediately thereafter, Doug Collins took apart the disputed facts. Now Chuck Schumer wants additional witnesses. Take a hike, Chuckie. While Sen. Schumer insists that additional witnesses are needed, House Democrats just voted to impeach President Trump. Did House Democrats just vote to impeach President Trump without adequate proof that proved their case? Is Sen. Schumer accusing the House Democrats of dropping an incomplete case in his lap?

The Democrats’ impeachment of President Trump will live in infamy. The Democrats’ impeachment of President Trump is their legacy. The House Democrats’ legacy is that of rank partisanship, led by Ms. Pelosi and Adam Schiff. Their legacy is a dark chapter in the history of the House of Representatives.

The good news is that restoration is less than 12 months away.

In a display of the worst partisanship in Washington, DC in decades, Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff are set to lead the Democrats over the impeachment cliff. Nadler gave away the reason why Democrats are impeaching President Trump:

“We cannot rely on an election to solve our problems when the president threatens the very integrity of that election,” Nadler claimed during Wednesday’s session.

Saying that President Trump is a threat to the 2020 election is BS. That’s a statement that Nadler doesn’t have proof for, though it’s a provocative accusation he’s thrown around before. The American people have seen through Nadler’s and Schiff’s nonsense and have started turning on Democrats:

Democrats from districts that supported Trump in 2016, however, have been less enthusiastic. Recent polls have shown declining support for impeachment in key swing states, with two polls released Wednesday indicating that most Americans did not want Trump removed.

Politico reported earlier this week that the numbers were making a “small group” of moderate Democrats, who have held seats in districts where Trump won in 2016, nervous about how to vote. They instead have suggested Trump be censured, which would prevent the GOP from holding a potentially damaging Senate trial and give them political cover in the upcoming election.

To complicate matters for these so-called moderates, if they vote for censuring President Trump, it’s virtually guaranteed that they’ll get primaried by the Justice Democrats, the organization that propelled AOC. Follow this link to read the Justice Democrats’ platform. But I digress.

Over the cliff they go

Republicans, meanwhile, have vociferously opposed the impeachment effort. The committee’s ranking member, Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, stated that Democrats have been trying to impeach Trump since he took office. He echoed the White House’s argument that the impeachment was politically motivated theater, long in the works and foreshadowed openly by Democrats for months, if not years.

He and Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., each argued that unlike previous presidents who have faced impeachment, Trump was not accused of an offense actually defined by law: neither “abuse of power” nor “obstruction of Congress” is a recognized federal or state crime. Those are the two offenses outlined in the articles of impeachment before the committee. (The separate charge of contempt of Congress, according to the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel, exempts the president for separation-of-powers reasons.)

In the Nixon articles of impeachment, one of the articles would have been abuse of power. In that instance, though, there were multiple crimes attached to the article of impeachment. It wasn’t some fuzzy accusation like this article will be. Further, the obstruction of Congress article is utterly laughable.

After President Trump asserted various privileges, Nadler and Schiff insisted that this was obstruction of Congress because President Trump insisted that Congress go through the courts to enforce their subpoenas. That is how the system is supposed to work. That’s the remedy envisioned by the men who wrote the Constitution. Alan Dershowitz, who I think of as a consistent constitutionalist, highlights the fatal flaw of the Democrats’ articles of impeachment in this op-ed:

Neither of these proposed articles satisfy the express constitutional criteria for an impeachment, which are limited to “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Neither are high or low crimes or misdemeanors. Neither are mentioned within the Constitution.

Both are so vague and open ended that they could be applied in partisan fashion by a majority of the House against almost any president from the opposing party. Both are precisely what the Framers had rejected at their Constitutional Convention. Both raise the “greatest danger,” in the words of Alexander Hamilton, that the decision to impeach will be based on the “comparative strength of parties,” rather than on “innocence or guilt.”

Nadler and Schiff won’t listen to Prof. Dershowitz so over the cliff they’ll go. Good riddance to these self-destructive Democrats.

When I read Angie Craig’s quotes in this article, the first thing I thought of was that Craig wasn’t happy with Speaker Pelosi’s initial actions. Craig is quoted as saying “The speaker listened. That’s all she did today. The speaker listened to us. I’m in a district where I think I’ve been reluctant to move forward only from the perspective of, I want to be disciplined, I want to look at due process, and I want to make sure we have all of our facts. And this inquiry will allow us to do that. And I’m very supportive of Adam Schiff and what he and his committee [are doing].”

The first thing that jumps off the page at me is that she’s “very supportive of Adam Schiff.” That’s a stunning admission on Craig’s part. She’s representing Minnesota’s 2nd District, not Minnesota’s 4th or Fifth districts.

Further, asking the most tone-deaf Democrat politician how to message something in a Minnesota House race sounds a little desperate. I’d also suggest that people who don’t know how to message an issue probably shouldn’t have staked out their political position. I’d point Ms. Craig to this article, which says this:

According to a Quinnipiac University national poll published Wednesday morning, Limbaugh may be on to something. The poll, which received 1,337 responses from registered voters across the political spectrum, indicated that support for Trump’s impeachment sits below 40 percent. Opposition, on the other hand, is at 57 percent.

My point is that this isn’t a packaging issue. It’s a content issue. This is how Doug Collins expressed it in his opening statement for the House Judiciary Committee’s Lewandowski hearing:

Collins said that “I’ve never seen a majority who’ve been so amazed with packaging in my life. You know why? It’s because they can’t sell what’s inside.” Craig has the same difficulty. It isn’t the packaging. It’s the crap that’s inside. Just a third of registered voters want Democrats to impeach President Trump. The American people are trying to tell Pelosi’s Democrats that this isn’t that big of a deal to them. They’re saying that this doesn’t rise to the level of “treason, bribery, high crimes or misdemeanors.”

Ms. Craig has a Schiff problem. She’s listening to Chairman Schiff too much. That won’t play well next October because Schiff has said a thousand things that are perfect for campaign commercials. Schiff is a California nutjob. That might play well in Minnesota’s 4th or Fifth districts but Minnesota’s 2nd District is a totally different critter.

The Democrats are heading for a difficult year whoever they pick as their presidential nominee. The bad news for them is that things can get worse if Democrats are pictured as Do-Nothing Democrats or Impeachment Democrats.

Anyone that watched this afternoon’s House Judiciary Committee hearing that featured former Trump Campaign Manager Corey Lewandowski as the Committee’s star witness saw Democrats that were frustrated. Those same Democrats were mockingly called “the Party of Impeachment” by Congressman Ratcliffe, (R-TX). By any stretch of the imagination, today’s hearing was a wretched sight.

If I was running the NRCC’s campaign, and I’m not (Tom Emmer is running things), I’d simply have candidates watch Jerry Nadler’s questioning of Mr. Lewandowski. Either that I’d have them watch the 3 Stooges, although the 3 Stooges weren’t as discombobulated as Chairman Nadler. Chairman Nadler wasn’t just bewildered during his questioning of Mr. Lewandowski. He was frustrated, too. Watch this videoclip and ask yourself if Chairman Nadler looks composed or agitated:

To me, Chairman Nadler looked extremely frustrated. He didn’t look composed whatsoever. Then compare that with how composed Rep. John Ratcliffe looks while questioning Mr. Lewandowski:

Doug Collins’ needling of Chairman Nadler might be my favorite part of the hearing:

The best part came when Collins said “I’ve never seen a majority so interested in packaging in all my life. You know why? Because they can’t sell what’s inside. They can’t sell the product so they just keep packaging it differently. You like having the press here. You like having the cameras because it makes it look like something’s happening but it’s not.”

Collins continued, saying “The American people are starting to get it. They’re starting to get it that if you’re just howling at the wind, you’re not doing anything.”

Later, Lewandowski got under Hakeem Jeffries’ skin:

Lewandowski later declined to play along with certain questions. New York Democratic Rep. Hakeem Jeffries asked Lewandowski if he was Trump’s “hitman, the bag man, the lookout, or all of the above?” “I think I’m the good looking man, actually,” Lewandowski replied.

Honestly, today’s House Judiciary Committee hearing exposed how incompetent Democrats are. If a back-bencher like Jerry Nadler is a committee chairman, that’s proof positive that Democrats aren’t worthy of holding gavels. Democrats were so bad that MSNBC and CNN criticized Committee Democrats:

NBC News correspondent Ken Dilanian suggested to MSNBC’s Ali Velshi that Democratic lawmakers were primarily focused on “getting their moment on television” than getting the facts from their witness.

Then there’s this:

Politico reporter and MSNBC analyst Jake Sherman questioned why Lewandowski’s involvement in the Mueller report “wasn’t the focus” of the hearing. “At the end of the day, Democrats are going to have to leave this hearing and say, ‘What did we accomplish today and did it bring us closer to X?’ They don’t know what ‘X’ is,” Sherman told the panel.

“They don’t know what they’re doing and at the end of this hearing, I suspect… that they feel like Trump has changed the rules so much that he’s impervious to all of this. He’s not afraid of impeachment… so they’re just kind of coasting along and doing their thing.”

Holding a gavel is a prestigious accomplishment. I didn’t see a single Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee that I thought was qualified to chair a committee. Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee got trolled. These Democrats sit on one of the most prestigious, historic committees in history. This is the committee that started the impeachment proceedings against Richard Nixon. Rather than looking the part, Corey Lewandowski trolled Eric Swalwell:

Lewandowski appeared to mock California Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell’s unsuccessful bid for the White House earlier this year, calling him “President Swalwell” at one point during questioning.

These Democrats aren’t ready for primetime. I’m not certain that they’re up to a part on Keystone Cops. I am certain that they’re best suited to back-benchers in the minority party in the House.

To say that Doug Collins was upset with Democrats is understatement. Thursday, Rep. Collins exploded with righteous indignation at do-nothing Democrats, saying “lately, this has become a committee of press releases.” Collins thanked the witnesses for coming to the hearing, then saying “dehumanizing is taking people you say you care about but then doing nothing for them.”

Rep. Collins started reading his opening statement, then stopped rather dramatically. If you want to see what righteous indignation looks like, watch this video:

That’s what righteous indignation looks like. That’s what a man looks like who’s frustrated by do-nothing Democrats for doing nothing. This clip will be shown in campaign ad after campaign ad next fall. If Pelosi, Nadler, et al, don’t get a ton of bills passed and signed by this time next year, expect Republicans to bury freshman Democrats with ads cut from Rep. Collins’ justified diatribe.

Collins went on:

I think about these kids being used. I think about the Flores Agreement and the trafficking issue or the asylum issue.

Collins finished, saying “I couldn’t read the rest of this. This is dehumanizing. This is showing a non-competent, non-capable majority.” Let’s add some context to Rep. Collins’ speech:

Collins, the top Republican on the panel, spoke at a forum titled, “Oversight of Family Separation and U.S. Customs and Border Protection,” where Democrats sought to bring attention to what they say is the continued practice of separating children from adult migrants at the border.

The Do-nothing Democrats are experts at whining about what they think is wrong. They’re utterly worthless at fixing things. What have Do-Nothing Democrats gotten done since regaining the majority? Here’s what:

NOTHING!

That’s what they’ve fixed. Nothing. Then there’s this:

“My Democratic colleagues have ideas, I may disagree with those ideas but put a bill up,” Collins yelled. “I have a bill, put mine up, make amendments to it, do whatever you want to do — that’s what Congress is supposed to do. Dehumanizing is this.”

A vote for a Democrat is a vote for a blowhard politician who isn’t interested in fixing problems. A vote for a Democrat is a vote for a politician who isn’t interested in keeping their campaign promises. A vote for a Democrat is a vote for doing nothing. It’s that simple.