Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) just admitted this weekend that impeachment was all about the election and now, Democrat impeachment manager Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) has just confessed it too, making it even more clear than Hirono.
Lofgren appeared on CNN with Jake Tapper to talk about the impeachment trial.
Tapper asked her why the Democrats had not pursued getting witnesses in the House that they are now claiming they need, despite at the same time claiming they have an “overwhelming case.”
“Congresswoman, you told senators this week ‘Don’t surrender to the president’s stonewalling,’” Tapper said. “But what do you say to those who say, that’s what exactly what the House Democrats did by not going to court to try to force subpoenas and force witnesses?”
Tapper presses House Impeachment Manager Lofgren on Democrats not pursuing witnesses in court (but insisting the Senate should).
Incredible that she doesn’t have a better answer for this. pic.twitter.com/bXfpKPxZuE
— Matt Whitlock (@mattdizwhitlock) January 26, 2020
From Daily Wire:
“We did go to court, as you know,” Lofgren replied.
“But you didn’t pursue it in court,” Tapper responded. “You ultimately withdrew the cases and went to the Senate.”
“We realized we had the evidence we were going to get and that it was sufficient to prove our case,” Lofgren responded.
“But didn’t you surrender to the president’s stonewalling, in that sense?” Tapper asked.
“Well, in that — I guess, in that sense, we did, because, if we had waited for three or four years, the election would be over,” Lofgren said. “The issue would be almost moot.”
In other words, if they waited for the courts to actually rule on things like executive privilege, they couldn’t use it as ammunition in this election to try to defeat President Donald Trump. Proving once again, it’s not about the Constitution. Nor is an obstruction charge even valid when you’re calling the exercising of Constitutional rights “obstruction.” And the Democrats themselves pulled their suit back and didn’t push for the witnesses they wanted so how is that obstruction by the president and why should they now be entitled to those same witnesses?
Meanwhile Democrats set a horrible precedent not only of abusing the impeachment process for political reasons but that someone affording themselves of executive privilege or the Constitutional rights is somehow “obstructing.”
Can you imagine if that were applied to Barack Obama all the times he actually did stonewall Congress and refuse to turn over witnesses or documents?
Democrats have pretty much been trying to impeach the president since he was elected, it has nothing to do with anything he’s actually done, and everything about the fact he won and they don’t want him to win again.