Valerie Jarrett: Obama would be impeached 'in a nanosecond' for behaving like Trump

Valerie Jarrett: Obama would be impeached 'in a nanosecond' for behaving like Trump
© Getty

Former White House senior adviser Valerie JarrettValerie June Jarrett#WeAreBaltimore surges to top of Twitter in wake of Trump comments Roseanne Barr, Andrew Dice Clay launch standup tour Valerie Jarrett: 'Our country is ready for a female president' MORE said Thursday that former President Obama would have been impeached in “a nanosecond” if he behaved like President TrumpDonald John TrumpDavid Axelrod after Ginsburg cancer treatment: Supreme Court vacancy could 'tear this country apart' EU says it will 'respond in kind' if US slaps tariffs on France Ginsburg again leaves Supreme Court with an uncertain future MORE.

Asked by co-host Zerlina Maxwell during an interview on Sirius XM’s "Signal Boost" how quickly Obama would have been impeached in similar circumstances, Jarrett responded "about a nanosecond."

“I think that the standards have slipped dramatically and there's no earthly way President Obama could have gotten away with any of this. Not just the words and the content, but just the policy reversals and what we're doing to the fabric of our country,” she said.

ADVERTISEMENT

However, Jarrett said she believed the focus should not be impeachment but “what are we going to do to get people engaged in improving our democracy,” noting her efforts with former first lady Michelle ObamaMichelle LeVaughn Robinson ObamaObamas reportedly buying Martha's Vineyard mansion The Hill's Morning Report - Trump touts new immigration policy, backtracks on tax cuts Obama explains decision to get into movie business: 'We all have a sacred story' MORE to increase civic engagement through the nonpartisan group When We All Vote.

Jarrett also addressed Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellDavid Axelrod after Ginsburg cancer treatment: Supreme Court vacancy could 'tear this country apart' Pelosi asks Democrats for 'leverage' on impeachment Democrats press FBI, DHS on response to white supremacist violence MORE’s (R-Ky.) recent comments that he would allow a vote for a Trump nominee to the Supreme Court if there was a vacancy in 2020. In 2016, the GOP leader sparked ire after he refused to allow a vote on Merrick GarlandMerrick Brian GarlandDavid Axelrod after Ginsburg cancer treatment: Supreme Court vacancy could 'tear this country apart' Law professor: Court-packing should be 'last resort' Here's how senators can overcome their hyperpartisanship with judicial nominees MORE, Obama's final pick for the high court, citing the presidential election later that year.

“Are you really trying to raise my blood pressure? I am always very positive on Twitter, and he is the one person that can actually make me snap,” Jarrett said of McConnell. “For him to suddenly, quite smugly say, 'Well yeah, of course we'll push it through,' just shows you who he is. As, as I said a couple of weeks ago, ‘when people show you who they are [quoting Maya Angelou] believe them the first time.’ ”

A number of Democratic lawmakers and several presidential candidates such as Sens. Kirsten GillibrandKirsten Elizabeth GillibrandThe Hill's Campaign Report: Democratic field begins to shrink ahead of critical stretch Gabbard, Steyer inch toward making third Democratic debate Gillibrand unveils mental health plan MORE (D-N.Y.) and Cory BookerCory Anthony BookerSteyer calls on DNC to expand polling criteria for debates Gabbard hits DNC over poll criteria for debates The Hill's Campaign Report: Democratic field begins to shrink ahead of critical stretch MORE (D-N.J.) came out in favor of impeachment this week after special counsel Robert MuellerRobert (Bob) Swan MuellerMueller report fades from political conversation Trump calls for probe of Obama book deal Democrats express private disappointment with Mueller testimony MORE gave a rare public statement. Mueller emphasized that his investigation he did not exonerate Trump of obstruction of justice, but he said that Justice Department guidelines did not allow him to consider whether to charge the president with a crime.