It’s a great question. It’s rooted in the challenge to the 2016 election that consumed the better part of three years, in one form or another. It created the space where elections no longer had integrity.

My personal opinion on the legitimacy of the most recent election is not germane to the questions I asked. The position I am presenting is one of precedent. If it’s acceptable to challenge elections well after they have been certified, how is this different? It took three years to demonstrate that Russian collusion did not have the stated effect so many cried about. If the same lack of evidence is produced in this case, so be it.

Why not have the same level of objectivity with this investigation?