Rep. Doug Collins, R-Ga., rating member on the Home Judiciary Committee, in his workplace on Capitol Hill.
Mhari Shaw/NPR
conceal caption
toggle caption
Mhari Shaw/NPR
Rep. Doug Collins, R-Ga., rating member on the Home Judiciary Committee, in his workplace on Capitol Hill.
Mhari Shaw/NPR
All Issues Thought-about host Mary Louise Kelly interviews Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, the highest Republican on the Home Judiciary Committee, on Capital Hill in regards to the impeachment inquiry into President Trump.
Mary Louise Kelly: We’re talking on the day that Home Speaker Nancy Pelosi has introduced the Home is able to transfer ahead with articles of impeachment. What’s your response?
Rep. Doug Collins: Actually, no response. That is what we have been anticipating for some time. I imply, anyone I heard say this was breaking information. That is solely breaking information for those who’ve been in hibernation for the final yr. They have been wanting to do that. They’re transferring ahead now. Yeah, I do discover it a little bit bit stunning that it got here after yesterday. And which, frankly, for those who have been making an attempt to say, “What’s the articles about?” I imply, you may take a special perspective. However it’s actually regarding to me that the one factor that’s not clear, that has been clear in different impeachment workouts, whether or not you agree with this president or not, it is irrelevant. I feel Mr. Turley and among the others even pointed this out —
Jonathan Turley [constitutional law scholar], one of many witnesses yesterday earlier than your committee —
Yeah, he laid this out that we do not have uncontested info right here. I feel, properly, I assume for those who had an uncontested reality it will likely be: there was a telephone name. However previous that, there appears to be a distinction of opinion. Even one of many witnesses yesterday talked about inference, there was all this. So I feel this can be a concern for many people going ahead is how we go ahead after yesterday. What I feel the speaker did in the present day was to easily revive and say, “Sure, we’re doing this.” I did assume it was fascinating, although, she did not give a timeframe. However though, after some conversations I’ve had already this morning, we nonetheless would love it to be earlier than Christmas.
The suggestion is that this can occur earlier than Christmas.
I might assume so, sure.
So how does that play out? What’s subsequent in your committee?
I feel it makes it very troublesome. Look, when my chairman [Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y.], I feel, and I’ve had a protracted relationship, once we do, when he does it — and we have had occasions once we do it proper and we get alongside very properly and once we do not. However I feel even at occasions once I’ve even been vital of him, I feel the speaker and the management within the Democratic Celebration might be placing an excessive amount of strain on a course of that he isn’t had his fingers on for the final six months. We have been taken away from us. And now he is anticipated to take what others have given and never be given the complete run to have our personal crack at these witnesses, our personal probability to see. And there is causes for that. We might — among the witnesses, might or might not, and I am not going to call who they could be, we name them in, it is fascinating to see do they preserve their identical story? Do they preserve it in the identical means? These are issues that we’re not gonna get the chance, it seems to be like, proper now to check.
Let me comply with on a few belongings you’ve mentioned. One is: you need to have the ability to query reality witnesses your self.
Sure. That is the largest factor.
However reality witnesses have been questioned by the Home. They’ve testified. The Home Intelligence Committee did seven hours of hearings, held seven hearings, questioned individuals over greater than 30 hours beneath oath. Do you anticipate that they’d come earlier than your committee and say one thing radically totally different?
Properly, they may. But additionally, we, once more, there is a two-fold drawback right here. Primary, if that was the one problem, then let the let the Home Intelligence Committee write the articles of impeachment and convey ’em to the ground. Do not give ’em to Judiciary. Then why are we coming again to Judiciary? Why are you placing in a step —
However to the central query: there was testimony, by reality witnesses, in entrance of the Home and so they have been questioned beneath oath by Republicans and Republican counsel.
Proper. However so is each investigation. I am going to take it even to an lawyer. The police examine. They ask questions. They’ve investigated. They’re going to have witnesses. They’re going to have testimony. However but relating to courtroom, they nonetheless should to offer testimony. OK? For those who’re counseling what Adam Schiff [House Intelligence Committee chairman, D-Calif.]mentioned, we are the investigative group, then we’re coming to the following part of that, why would we not have the identical, you realize, firsthand data of this right here? And there could also be questions that I requested that weren’t requested within the different.
However there may be one other problem that I feel was glossed over there. Not in your query, however I feel within the understanding. Now we have to return, two months in the past now, to when the Democrats determined to, quote, “formalize their impeachment course of.” OK, they did the foundations. And that is the way it was going to interrupt out. One of many issues that was essential there was, is that they waited until the Judiciary Committee to really usher in what we’ll name at the very least partial engagement from the White Home in and of itself, for witnesses or for cross-examining others and issues like that. If we do not have a rule — like yesterday, it was no use within the White Home counsel’s coming for that as a result of it was actually nothing for them to ask and to be part of.
I wish to comply with on that, however make your level.
Yeah, however there’s not. And so, but when there may be different witnesses, like, so once we get the report, there will likely be an opportunity for them to ask questions of Adam Schiff, everyone else, or one other witnesses, that is their time to really do this. And if we do not have a strong set of hearings in our committee, not that they do not come to the identical conclusion and impeach him, that is their perogative. However do they actually wish to inform the American individuals they went by the time and expense and energy to cross these guidelines however by no means actually put them into motion?
You are calling for a strong set of hearings —
Sure.
And with the ability to cross-examine witnesses. Is not the truth that reality witnesses aren’t showing earlier than your committee and others a direct consequence of White Home interference?
No
They’re blocking witnesses from testifying.
No, it is a direct consequence of this Home being so bent on calendar and clock to get an impeachment carried out that they don’t seem to be keen to undergo their very own, you realize, their very own — as Jonathan Turley really mentioned yesterday — the abuse of energy is coming in a Congress that is not keen to work by the method. And I feel that is a part of the difficulty that we’re coping with. Keep in mind —
The Intelligence Committee of their report has documented 12 witnesses that have been known as. I am going to provide the precise quantity right here. Twelve present and former officers with direct data. The White Home is stopping them from testifying. Ten of them have been subpoenaed. The White Home Intelligence Committee impeachment report additionally paperwork not a single doc has been produced by the White Home, the workplace of the vp, the Workplace of Administration and Price range, the Division of State, the Division of Protection, or the Division of Vitality. Regardless of 71 particular calls for for paperwork.
They’ve. No, particularly once more, although, however not one of the report additionally lists any of the the explanation why that, particularly on the witness aspect, why they’ve selected to not take part, and the privileges which may be invoked right here. That is one thing —
However the subpoenas are in impact. They have been —
The subpoenas are in impact however even — there have been subpoenas in impact beneath the Obama administration as properly. And even Eric Holder [Obama’s attorney general] was held in contempt for not complying with a subpoena.
However I am taking these subpoenas. How does that not represent obstruction?
Properly, what it’s a must to take a look at is, you undergo a course of right here. OK. And one of many issues that this course of — and I introduced this out yesterday. Our committee has been belligerent in its strategy to lots of the processes that we have had — getting paperwork from DOJ, getting different issues. And for those who simply had that merely to have a look at as your lens, then that is superb. However you may’t as a result of it’s a must to take a look at the Congress as a complete. Eliot Engel [D-N.Y.], one of many quieter, extra environment friendly chairmen on this Hill, and a Democrat that I’ve revered, I’ve labored with him for some time, his committee has been wonderful at getting paperwork and dealing by processes with this administration.
That is the [House] Overseas Affairs Committee.
The Overseas Affairs Committee. You already know why? As a result of they really engaged the administration to really work on it. Whereas we have been in the midst of a few of our largest discussions with the Division of Justice, on not getting info, Adam Schiff started to get paperwork as a result of he went and mentioned, “This is how we will do that. Let’s perpetrate this.” But additionally, let’s not additionally assume that the president and the White Home didn’t — they launched the transcript of the decision. They launched a second transcript of the decision. They’ve — for those who return to Mueller, you go about — unprecedented even by, what they talked about yesterday, of the entry that was given by the Mueller report. I feel at a sure cut-off date, you simply get to the —
However to blocking 12 witnesses, who’ve direct data of those occasions.
As I mentioned yesterday, it could be my — and it was answered by Mr. Turley — it is also, there’s a precedent for the president himself, not only for himself, however for the presidency, to make it possible for there are particular constitutional bounds that they are claiming and privileges that they are claiming.
Now, the treatment for that, as was mentioned within the assembly yesterday, is the courtroom system. And if they do not like that, look, it was introduced out yesterday within the hearings. Don McGahn [former White House counsel] —
However it looks as if you are asking to have it each methods —
No.
You need these witnesses to testify, however the White Home is obstructing them from testifying. So, ought to the White Home permit them to testify?
Properly, you are assuming that I need the 12 witnesses to testify. You are making an assumption that these 12 witnesses that I might wish to have testify —
I am quoting you saying you need individuals who have direct data of proof to testify —
Properly, I do—
Like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, or performing White Home —
How in regards to the whistleblower? How about how about Adam Schiff, who had contact with the whistleblower?
You’ve known as for Adam Schiff —
I’ve known as for Adam Schiff. And what’s actually fascinating is: why has Adam Schiff additionally not launched the Intelligence Committee’s IG Report?
Though watch out what you want for, as a result of Adam Schiff, no matter you consider his politics, is fairly expert at commanding a listening to room.
Did I ever say he wasn’t? I feel that is a broad assumption that you just simply made. I am not fearful of any member of Congress and the way he does it.
I am not saying you are fearful of him, I am saying: is {that a} witness who’s going to advance your trigger?
Oh, I feel it could. However I feel the beneath problem is that this. If not, what are you hiding from?
But additionally, I’ll say this about him being the — I am going to watched with curiosity his talent at, quote, “main his committee room,” when he on parliamentary points and issues that he ought to have, he blatantly run over and never acknowledge and never acknowledge motions. That is not skillful. That is not working a committee room, that is overrunning the foundations and being a bully. Let’s simply be frank about that. You name it no matter you wish to name it. However when you do not acknowledge motions, when you do not acknowledge and correctly comply with out process, then that is on him. And you may name it skillful in case your perspective is to love him, and also you name it a bully for those who’ve perspective with what really occurs. The most important blow ups we have ever had in committee, in Judiciary Committee, is when Chairman Nadler did not comply with the foundations. When he follows the foundations, like yesterday, it goes orderly and we’re capable of get in our questions and do what we have to do. That is the half that I’ve all the time mentioned: do no matter you wish to do. You’re the majority and you may return and hearken to transcripts that I’ve had. You’ve the votes. You are able to do no matter you wish to. However when the minority — the one factor that makes this place up right here viable is the minority having rights and having them exercised. And once we’re not in a position to try this, that is when the issues happen. And it did even beneath them once they have been within the minority.
You raised the query of precedent and what precedents could also be setting right here — could also be being set right here — and I wish to stick with that for a minute. The president has determined to not take part in any of this, in any of this course of —
Up till now.
He is declared it a hoax. White Home counsel has mentioned it is unconstitutional, illegitimate and so they’re not going to take part —
Up till now.
Have you ever gotten a sign that they’re planning to reverse course?
Learn the letter from [White House Counsel] Pat Cipollone this previous week the place he mentioned he was not going to take part, however would reserve the correct to take part and appears ahead to collaborating in what we do.
Ought to they take part?
Sure. When there may be an precise alternative through which it’s a state of affairs through which they will current, do the presentation that they should. I feel that is what we’re engaged on proper now.
However the state of affairs being what it’s, why not come make their case? If it was “an ideal name,” if the president did nothing unsuitable.
OK. Properly, let me simply say, and form of, I am going to do, if you wish to do hypothetical, I am going to do hypothetical. I noticed you shoplifting yesterday. Come, please inform me that you just did not shoplift. No. And watch out, as a result of for those who’re saying he has to return show his innocence, you want now to return show your innocence for shoplifting.
I’ll flip the road that I do know you are about to offer me again on you, which is: I am not going to take pleasure in hypothetical right here. However what we now have is a concrete state of affairs, the place the Structure has empowered the Home to conduct this. A majority of the Home has voted to look into impeachment. Why not come make the case and let People make up our personal minds?
Properly, primary, I might not suggest anyone go beneath the Schiff star chamber over the previous few months. It is simply the way in which it was run was not reasonably priced to anyone from a 3rd social gathering perspective. Whenever you take a look at it from that perspective, that is one of many issues to consider. However do not assume my hypothetical too severe, you realize, too out of context, as a result of for those who’re forcing — that is one thing’s been very troublesome to me all alongside in these processes that we have seen — is that you just assume guilt and it’s a must to show your innocence. We have seen this in lots of issues over this previous yr, and that is simply not the way in which our system works. Whether it is, then we have to return and re-examine our system. The issue is — that is additionally why it is onerous, I imagine, for Democrats to really get traction on this — as a result of they inherently see individuals who reside in the actual world day by day, who stand up and go to work, who take a look at this, who’re involved if that they had points or run-ins the place individuals accused them of stuff: they’re used to a system of due course of that’s honest. Whether or not we agree with the top outcome or not, that is the one factor that I feel if I used to be, if I used to be taking a look at it from an outsider to the Democrats, say: you might have your case and you might wish to impeach. However on the finish of the day, if individuals do not imagine what you are doing is honest, then it would not matter.
You mentioned Democrats are having bother getting traction on this. I am going to simply word for the report that persistently, polling is displaying {that a} majority of People do help this course of, help this investigation going forward. However let me ask you a non-hypothetical —
Properly, the polls additionally very a lot mirror the presidential election. You are not transferring hearts and minds right here. And once you take a look at the difficulty right here of Clinton, you take a look at Nixon, there was bipartisan understanding on this Hill due to info that got that mentioned, “Sure, there’s a drawback right here.” You do not have that right here. The one bipartisan vote we have had is to not do the inquiry. That is the one bipartisan vote.
A fundamental query: ought to the president be allowed to defy the need of Congress?
He is not. Neither is Congress to defy the need of a presidency.
He is not collaborating in a course of that this Home, which has been duly elected by the American individuals, has voted to interact in.
Properly, I want you and I might’ve had this dialog once I was sitting within the OGR Committee [House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform] and the Judiciary Committee early on when President Obama would regularly not take part, not give info. That is the half that is overrun right here: when it is to your benefit, we like to speak about it. When it is to not our benefit, we do not like to speak about. There is a fixed tug of battle between Congress and the executive department. To gloss over that now, is one thing that the president wants to beat and simply come to Congress, is just not honest.
I am as large an Article I individual as you are ever going to search out. I imagine in strong oversight. However I additionally imagine that the administration has a task to play as properly. And as was identified yesterday, the courtroom is the arbiter of these three.
However that is, I assume, that is my query: do you don’t have any concern that the White Home blockading a congressional investigation units a precedent that weakens the department of presidency through which you serve?
I do not see it as a large priority that is a brand new precedent. I feel what we’re seeing right here is one thing that is went on earlier than, and I do not see it, you realize, defining. I feel it’s a must to take every thing within the contextual phrases through which it’s. This isn’t one thing new. This can be a president who has needed to cope with this since actually hours out.
You possibly can’t overstate it. You possibly can you may look previous it. You will be pissed off by it. However it could be identical to me, if I used to be accusing you of one thing day by day, most of which has by no means been confirmed true, there turns into part of you that simply merely says, “I am bored with this. I am bored with the issues that haven’t been confirmed true and been false.” So there may be that a part of that you can’t, to assume a president — who’s a singular physique, in and of himself, that overruns the chief — to a congressional physique, which is many, many members.
Do you imagine the president did something unsuitable?
No, I don’t.
You don’t have any problem with the way in which he is carried out himself with reference to Ukraine.
No. I don’t.
Why is it OK to ask a overseas authorities to analyze your home political rival for those who’re the president of the USA?
Properly, primary, I take exception to that as being the explanation for it. He mentioned, “Would you assist us an investigation?” However I do have a query again.
It is within the White Home readout of the decision. He requested for an investigation of the Bidens: “Are you able to look into it?”
So if you wish to run for president, you are exempt from being investigated? I imply, simply an sincere query. If legitimately abroad, there have been some issues that goes again to — keep in mind, to the 2016 election, not the 2020 — is {that a} professional ask, a professional query, that for those who run for president, you are exempt from being requested these questions?
In fact not.
OK. Then we’re carried out.
Let me … are we? Say it isn’t Joe Biden. The president requested for an investigation of an American, of a U.S. citizen —
Now you are altering the query.
I am not.
Sure you might be.
If the president of the USA is anxious a couple of U.S. citizen being corrupt or committing a criminal offense, why not ask the Justice Division? Why name the president of Ukraine?
Properly keep in mind, he additionally mentioned when that very same factor is, to cope with Invoice Barr and others that we’re investigating. OK. That is our investigators. That is our lawyer basic.
He is on the telephone with the president of Ukraine saying, “are you able to look into this.”
However he — however he additionally mentioned to work with these people as properly. The issue is, it is fascinating on this on this dialog, you modified from one situation the place “yeah, I agree” to vary to a different situation that does not suit your narrative. That is the half that I feel: look, I get pleasure from conversations like this. I feel it is the actual cause why we should always have extra strong debate within the Judiciary Committee.
Uh-huh.
There are totally different views and we will rightfully have these totally different views. However with out the Judiciary Committee, I assume it comes right down to —
However it’s not a perspective. It’s a incontrovertible fact that the president requested a overseas authorities to analyze Joe Biden.
OK. The problem, I assume, the transcript —
For the report, that does not trouble you?
The transcript says what the transcript says. And he mentioned we have to repair this as a result of — keep in mind, there’s additionally a contextual factor that got here out yesterday that was actually fascinating. This name occurred the day after the Mueller listening to. When which, you realize, this nationwide nightmare of the Mueller listening to really got here to an finish with a really irritating outcome for the Democrats, and likewise confirmed the cut up that was occurring and the frustration of just about two years of investigations. And when he says assist us, you realize, in our nations, as a result of we have been by lots, that is what he is ta lking about. And so, once more, we will debate this advert nauseum. And I feel that is the purpose that we’re getting at.
However it brings me to my level: with these questions on the market, you both do it somehow. You let Adam Schiff do his run and run every thing after which convey the articles of impeachment. They technically haven’t got to return from Judiciary Committee. Why would you convey it again to Judiciary Committee? Why would you set in particular guidelines to the place you are, quote, “wanting at the very least the looks of giving the president some enter,” however not undergo these guidelines? That is only a legitimate query, whether or not you you wish to impeach him in the present day or not. And that is what we’re combating my chairman proper now to get a solution on what does he really intend to do? I can not inform you sitting on this room in my workplace proper now, the day after a listening to through which — usually that listening to is completed, by the way in which, beneath Clinton was two and a half weeks discover on that listening to — when it’s defining how you are going to do articles. This was, ought to have been most likely held later. I would not — I do not disagree that it is a listening to that you do not have. It is simply once you had it. And I feel what occurred yesterday was —
However you are centered on course of. And I get that, as a result of there are inquiries to be raised —
I’ll by no means not argue. Let’s get this out of the way in which. He did nothing unsuitable. The decision didn’t present something unsuitable. The info have carried out that. The one reality witnesses named in Adam Schiff’s re —
Even your personal witness, the witness that Republicans known as yesterday, Jonathan Turley, mentioned it was not an ideal name. It was removed from an ideal name.
OK. Are we defining “name” so far as good tone, model — no.
Properly the president says it was good. Do you assume it was good?
I imply, the president describes plenty of issues plenty of other ways. But additionally Jonathan Turley mentioned there’s nothing impeachable within the name. There’s nothing unsuitable with the decision. So which one do you wanna cease at? It was not, you wish to take —
He mentioned there was a lot unsuitable with the decision. However {that a} case must be constructed.
However it was not constructed. And I feel that is your problem right here. So I feel as we glance ahead on this, my query could be, is: are we going to at the very least have this, you realize, very strong dialogue for the American individuals, or has it already been determined? Many people imagine it is already been determined. Why waste our time? As a result of, primary, it isn’t going anyplace in the USA Senate. There’s nothing right here that might point out that that might occur. And that is superb. Look, most knew that that might not occur in Clinton as properly. However it’s an train that has to occur.
I feel this goes again to anyone that anyone in Pennsylvania informed me a couple of month and a half in the past. It was a Republican operative in Pennsylvania. And we’re sitting there speaking about this and —
Are you able to say who?
It was a gentleman. In a gathering I used to be having. And I used to be doing a speech later that night. And we’re simply speaking about it typically. And he made this remark. He mentioned, look. And it actually hit me as a result of I form of considered it in several methods. And that is most likely one of the simplest ways to sum it up. He mentioned, “I have been fascinated with this, Doug.” And I mentioned, “What? What do you assume?” He mentioned, “I feel on the finish of the day, they only must have him impeached as a result of they want the 30 second advert subsequent yr to say, ‘We needed to impeach him. How will you give him 4 extra years?’ ” So on the finish of the day, it isn’t about holding something accountable. It isn’t about holding something — and what number of occasions my chairman yesterday talked in regards to the future elections — informed me precisely what that is about. It is about subsequent yr’s election for them. To make it possible for he’s broken going into an election cycle. Proper or unsuitable. I simply occur to imagine the American individuals, in the event that they wish to eliminate President Trump, they’re going to discover a Democratic candidate that they like, they’re going to get behind them and do it the way in which we all the time do it.
That is fascinating, as a result of as you realize, Democrats argue this the precise reverse means. We had Adam Schiff on NPR this week. He mentioned no Home GOP members are going to help the impeachment course of. And the explanation, he mentioned, is as a result of there may be, quote, “an incredible worry of antagonizing the Trump base.” He mentioned Home Republicans aren’t gonna do what’s essential to defend our democracy.
Adam Schiff has a novel means of phrases and likewise a novel means of the reality. I imply, he is additionally, all — he mentioned he had collusion in plain sight within the Mueller report. Wow, that went away fairly fast.
So, look, we’re all going to have distinction of opinions.
Mueller report could also be coming again. We will see.
Yeah. As a result of the Judiciary Committee says, “Oh, my gosh, we will not be omitted of this altogether.”
So I feel that is the place I am at. And I feel, you realize, for our dialog right here and for the listeners on the market, all I am going to say is that this: every thing in America operates off the premise of equity and due course of. All we’re asking for and all we’re saying right here is — I am going to argue the substance all day lengthy, for these anyone, any Democrat or reporter who thinks that I will not argue substance is simply factually unsuitable. We do not see the issue right here, we do not see the difficulty and we do not assume he did something unsuitable. I am going to get that out of the way in which clearly. But when I am a Democrat making an attempt to show that to the American individuals, and I do not give the potential for that, then on the finish of the day, we now have an issue.
You are a minister.
Sure.
You’ve a grasp’s in divinity?
Sure.
You’ve got served as an Air Pressure Reserve chaplain.
Nonetheless do.
You’ve spent a portion of your life considering deeply about proper and unsuitable.
Sure.
Ethical character.
Went to battle as properly.
Do you imagine the president has exercised good ethical character in his management?
I feel that train is character is all that he’s acted out in his means. And I additionally imagine that ethical character is proven in how we cope with people every day. I’ve what I imagine, you’ve gotten what you imagine. You already know.
My query is about Donald Trump.
Are there issues that I agree or disagree with the president? Certain. Are there issues that I might deal with otherwise? Certain. However I am certain I might have dealt with this interview otherwise if I would had been on the opposite aspect of this mic. So all of us have distinction of opinion as we go ahead. So I feel as we transfer ahead, we go from our personal convictions and we are saying, “Look, we’re an imperfect world that is dominated by imperfect individuals.” The best factor about it that we get from our religion perspective, because you introduced it in, is the reward of Christ that give us forgiveness for our sins, that give us everlasting life. That’s what drives us in our life. So, you realize, if I can not give forgiveness or I can not give mercy to others, how can I anticipate to obtain it myself?
Final query. Altering gears, are you going to run for Senate from Georgia subsequent yr, in 2020, in a particular election?
Properly, given the truth that my room is crowded proper now with individuals speaking about impeachment, I’ve no time to consider anything besides impeachment up right here. The federal government —
Are you ruling it out?
I do not assume, once more, placing phrases in my mouth. I mentioned the governor, I used to be gonna say the governor did — I congratulated Miss [Kelly] Loeffler for being picked. You already know, once more, as I’ve mentioned many occasions earlier than: I am coping with impeachment proper now. And we’ll make an announcement or we’ll cope with that after the very fact. I am not ruling in , ruling it out. I am simply merely stating a reality of the place we’re at proper now as a result of I don’t — for my constituents, the state of Georgia and the nation, I am able proper now that has historic lights on it. I can’t be distracted from no matter I’ve to do up right here to anything. Thanks.
Congressman Collins, thanks.
Respect it.
The post NPR’s Full Interview With Rep. Doug Collins On Impeachment Inquiry : NPR appeared first on Down The Middle News.
source https://downthemiddlenews.com/nprs-full-interview-with-rep-doug-collins-on-impeachment-inquiry-npr/
No comments:
Post a Comment