House Republicans Publish DHS Sec. Mayorkas Impeachment Articles
The Homeland Security Committee will vote on the articles on Tuesday.
The House Homeland Security Committee Republicans released the articles of impeachment against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas on Sunday.
“Over the last year, the House Committee on Homeland Security conducted a comprehensive investigation into the causes, costs, and consequences of the unprecedented crisis at America’s borders, holding 10 hearings, publishing six reports totaling roughly 400 pages, and conducting extensive interviews with chief patrol agents for the U.S. Border Patrol,” stated Chairman Mark Green. “Our thorough and fair investigation exposed Secretary Mayorkas’ abuse of power and refusal to comply with the law. In November, 201 Democrats voted to refer articles of impeachment against the secretary to our Committee and, having completed impeachment hearings earlier this month, we plan to mark up those articles next week.
Republicans began the impeachment process because the border crisis has worsened under President Joe Biden’s administration.
The committee will vote on the articles on Tuesday, January 30. The articles are expected to pass along party lines, moving it to the House floor.
The articles accuse Mayorkas of “willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law” and “breach of public trust.”
The articles detail the immigration laws Mayorkas has allegedly violated and explains why the GOP thinks Mayorkas misled Congress and obstructed the GOP investigation.
The Republicans claim:
Throughout his tenure as Secretary of Homeland Se11 curity, Alejandro N. Mayorkas has repeatedly violated laws enacted by Congress regarding immigration and border security. In large part because of his unlawful conduct, millions of aliens have illegally entered the United States on an annual basis with many unlawfully remaining in the United States. His refusal to obey the law is not only an offense against the separation of powers in the Constitution of the United States, it also threatens our national security and has had a dire impact on communities across the country. Despite clear evidence that his willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law has significantly contributed to unprecedented levels of illegal entrants, the increased control of the Southwest border by drug cartels, and the imposition of enormous costs on States and localities affected by the influx of aliens, Alejandro N. Mayorkas has continued in his refusal to comply with the law, and thereby acted to the grave detriment of the interests of the United States.
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson wants to hold a House floor vote as soon as possible.
Constitutional Law professor Jonathan Turley pointed out that the Republicans do not have much of a case against Mayorkas.
On Fox News, Steve Doocy asked Turley if Mayorkas has committed any of the factors used for impeachment: treason, bribery, high crimes or misdemeanors.
From Mediaite:
“I don’t think they have established any of those bases for impeachment,” Turley replied. “The fact is, impeachment is not for being a bad cabinet member or even a bad person. It is a very narrow standard.”
He then explained how the framers of the Constitution rejected terms like “maladministration” to avoid this very thing. “Past Congresses have recognized that there’s a danger to this once you cross the Rubicon and start to remove cabinet members because they’re not doing a good job.”
“I just don’t believe that they have a cognizable basis here for impeachment,” Turley concluded. However, he did agree with Republican criticism of what he called President Joe Biden’s “open border.”
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Good. About damn time.
Obviously he’s not going to actually get removed, but a LOT of Democrats are suddenly trying to spew BS tough talk about the border. Put them on the record on a vote for this clown that has insisted for years that ‘the border is secure’.
You’re right. As soon as biden signed whatever he signed on day one to cause this, as soon as the effects of thousands actually showing up occurred, he should have been impeached. It’s been 100% deliberate.
It’s dim-witted, corrupt and destructive crime boss, Biden, who should be impeached — for myriad crimes and treason against the U.S.
Mayorkas is just a puppet of the malignant dotard residing in the White House geriatric ward.
Even this is more than I expected out of those cowards at Congress
Sure, but, what is the ultimate purpose? No substantive consequences will ensue. It’s Biden who needs to be held accountable, as the person who is — ostensibly — giving orders and refusing to enforce immigration laws.
We can only dream that this treasonous bastard will receive the punishment he deserves.
Rest assured, he won’t. He might be a little embarrassed for a short period of time but they’ll be no lasting imprint.
These Leftists have no shame. He won’t be embarrassed in the least.’
Bad move. Holding the hearings was completely the right move. But now that they’ve been held and Congress has the facts, the right thing to do is to publish them and start a public campaign against the administration, educating the public about what it has been doing to them, and making sure it cannot duck responsibility. Pass a censure motion by all means. But bringing articles of impeachment can only have two results, both bad:
1. The impeachment fails in the House. That would be very embarrassing to the Republicans.
2. It passes the House and the senate immediately acquits him. That is guaranteed to happen, if it gets that far. And an acquittal lets him claim to have been vindicated. Every time the Republicans tell the low-information voter how terrible he’s been, his supporters in the news industry (i.e. all of them) repeat in chorus: “Acquitted, acquitted”, and the LIV thinks this means the charges were discredited. An own goal by the Republicans.
Obviously, no one expects him to be convicted in the Senate. This impeachment like impeachments in the House is a political move.
In my opinion the goal is to unite the House GOP against the Senate bill that would give approval to the Open Border and allow the Democrats to claim it has bipartisan support. The bill’s passage would effectively remove mass illegal immigration as a campaign issue allowing untold millions of migrants with no background or security checks into this country for the taxpayers to support.
An impeachment hearing and perhaps trial would put public pressure on GOPe congress members and senators to stand up for this nation’s sovereignty. It would also keep the issue front and center for the November elections likely forcing all House and Senate candidates to take a position on the open borders and illegal immigration..
Milhouse, you have overlooked the third, best course of action.
3. House votes to impeach Mayorkas. Speaker Johnson takes the engrossed impeachment resolution and locks it in his safe, not sending it to the Senate.
What good does that do, you ask? When the impeachment resolution is enacted, itd triggers this provision in Article II Section 2 of the Constitution, viz:
‘…and he [the Prez—la] shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
The moment Mayorkas is impeached, Slowy (and any successor) loses the power to pardon Mayorkas. An acquittal in the Senate would revive the pardon power, hence Speaker Johnson keeps the resolution in his safe so the Senate can’t act on it.
Suddenly, Slowy does not have Mayorkas’s back with a pardon. That puts pressure on Mayorkas. Maybe he cuts a deal with the House, immunity from prosecution in return for warbling.
It’s not certain, but I think it is worth doing. to put pressure on Mayorkas.
Sorry, that’s bullshit. All the clause you quote says is that the president can’t pardon an impeachment. Alcee Hastings was impeached, convicted, and removed from the bench, and the president could not have changed that by pardoning him. But the president can absolutely pardon any crimes an impeached official may have committed.
The impeachment process and the criminal justice system are two completely different things, and the pardon power only applies to the second one. But as to the second one that power is absolute, and there is nothing Congress can do to prevent a pardon.
Someone tell me what negative consequences Clinton suffered for his impeachment. As I recall it, he turned it into a triumph and the gullible public ate it up.
And he had committed an actual crime, for which people actually go to prison. The NY Times identified eight people who were at that same moment serving time in federal prison, under Clinton’s responsibility, for doing exactly the same thing he did. He didn’t pardon any of them; it didn’t matter. Most people remained unaware of this, and he came out smelling like roses while the Republicans paid a humiliating price at the 1998 election
Monica suffered more than Bill.
Took the rinos over three years to get off the pot and do something? Color me unimpressed.
They’ve only controlled the house for a year, and they spent that year gathering the evidence. What more could you expect them to do?
Bezos without his makeup?
I’m a bit late to the party, but the razor-wire back-and-forth is quite telling.
Texas law enforcement erects the razor wire to keep migrants out of Texas.
Federal forces (National guard, Reserves, whatever) remove the razor wire to accomplish the goal of…what? Letting more migrants in to Texas?
What am I missing here?
The new play book, there is a new bill being worked on in the Senate that addresses many of the current issues and Mayorkas is involved in the new bill and he should remain in office. My question is what track record does he have in following the current laws on the books.? He may very well continue down the same path of only following the laws he chooses and not the ones passed and signed into law. He hasn’t earned a second second chance, he is beyond redemption.