A quick civics lesson seems in order for Democratic Rep. Pramila Jaypal. The U.S. government has three co-equal branches: a legislative branch, which makes laws; an executive branch, which enforces the laws; and a judicial branch, which interprets the laws. (The lesson might also be useful for Jaypal’s colleague, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who once suggested that the government has “three chambers.”)
That should help clear up the confusion Jaypal was experiencing when she told a CNN host that seeking relief in the courts over the Democrats’ partisan handling of the impeachment inquiry amounted to “obstruction of justice.” In fact, the courts exist to dispense justice.
Jaypal appeared to be echoing an equally head-scratching argument that Speaker Pelosi made yesterday, in which she said “she will not wait for the Supreme Court to rule on whether officials like acting White House chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, former National Security Advisor John Bolton or Secretary of State Mike Pompeo should testify before moving forward on impeachment.”
Will this presidential election be the most important in American history?
Jaypal took the curious argument a step further, stating that “trying to use the court system … is, in and of itself, obstruction of justice,” adding:
We are not going to allow the president to use obstruction of justice and obstruction of Congress to stop us by saying ‘well, we need to call more witnesses.
You can watch her entire baffling commentary here:
It seems that the longer the Democrats’ impeachment crusade goes on, the more we learn about how little they understand the law. Last week alone, we learned that hearsay “can be much better” than direct evidence and that the burden of proof of Donald Trump innocence lies with him.
