February 13, 2024

"But the charges against [Mayorkas] broke with history by failing to identify any [personal corruption and other wrongdoing]..."

"... instead effectively declaring the policy choices Mr. Mayorkas has carried out a constitutional crime. The approach threatened to lower the bar for impeachments — which already has fallen in recent years — reducing what was once Congress’s most potent tool to remove despots from power to a weapon to be deployed in political fights...."

From "House Republicans Impeach Mayorkas for Border Policies/In a redo of their first failed attempt, Republicans pushed through the charges over solid Democratic opposition, making the homeland security secretary the first sitting cabinet member to be impeached" (NYT).

66 comments:

tim in vermont said...

If the "policy difference" is to refuse to enforce the laws enacted by Congress, I don't see why impeachment is not the right solution. Trump was impeached for holding up some defense contractor's check for a few days, and probably the kickbacks from the Ukrainians were the real issue.

Harun said...

I read that Mayorkas in fact ordered agents to violate the law several times.

Now that the Democrats have decided you can't charge Biden because he's no longer compos mentis, that means Mayorkas is in the hot seat.

Mason G said...

Another first for Democrats. Way to go, guys!

tim in vermont said...

"Mr. Trump’s two acquittals made clear that a president could feel assured of keeping his office no matter how serious his transgressions"

LOL. Holding up a check. The other one? You have to believe a lot of fantasy connections that go against all of the real world evidence to even imagine that there was a "transgression." It's like the New York Times sees itself as a mind guard for a cult. It's really funny that the fact checking org that they force social media to use is called "NewGuard" which is so close to "mind guard" it has to be intentional.

Dude1394 said...

Good for the house. You started this crap democrats, thinking you will not see any use against you was silly. More please.

rehajm said...

Yay.

WWIII Joe Biden, Husk-Puppet + America's Putin said...

Buck cam thru?
That man cannot be trusted. I am shocked.

Iman said...

Republican House: “You are impeached!”

Mayorkas: “But what did I do? I didn’t do anything.”

Republican House: “Exactly!”

Bob Boyd said...

The so-called "policy choices" are to ignore federal statutory laws and to aid and abet deliberate lawbreakers.

Suppose Trump's EPA administrator decided to stop enforcing US environmental laws against oil companies or mine operators? Suppose he ordered EPA enforcement officers to actually assist the companies with practices that had been outlawed by Congress? Would that just be a policy choice?
Suppose a state governor sent in state law enforcement and National Guard to stop the polluting and the EPA sued the state to prevent them from protecting the environment.
Suppose states downstream began to feel the effects of the pollution and protested, but they were ignored or threatened and vilified by an administration determined to lower the cost of oil and minerals, claiming it to be in the best interests of all? Would those things simply be policy choices?

Did not Mayorkas take an oath to uphold the laws of the United States? If he deliberately swore falsely or broke his oath, would that not be a crime?

J Scott said...

"reducing what was once Congress’s most potent tool to remove despots from power" what fantasy history is this?

J Scott said...

"The House has initiated impeachment proceedings more than 60 times. But there have been only 21 impeachments. This includes three presidents, one cabinet secretary, and one senator. Of those who were impeached, only eight officials were found guilty by the Senate and removed from office."

Heartless Aztec said...

Impeach anything and everything that is sentinent and has a D after it's name.

PB said...

Policy choices? How about failing to enforce the law? Dereliction of duty? Lying to Congress?

Aggie said...

Oh, are there some trying to parse this as inappropriate now, with the subject 'having done nothing wrong' and having 'broken no laws' ?

Yes, but you see, impeachment is a po-lit-i-cal weapon, yes a tasty, delicious political weapon, which was taken out of the box some years ago in an act of very poor partisan judgment and a careless inattention to the possible future consequences, hmmmm?

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

LOL when exactly was it “Congress’s most potent tool to remove despots from power”? What despot? Where? This is the world you made Lefties. Deal with it.

Kevin said...

The approach threatened to lower the bar for impeachments — which already has fallen in recent years

Do tell.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Another HISTORIC FIRST for A-lay-hand-ro My-OR-cas! ¡Viva La raza!

P.S. Bob Boyd posed some cool hypotheticals.

gspencer said...

Failed to identify any wrongdoing?

He volitionally took the Article VI oath (pursuant to 5 USC section 3331) to obey the Constitution and federal laws and utterly ignored the statutes germane to his office.

As a result we now have wall-to-wall illegals.

Lloyd W. Robertson said...

I thought at the time Congress did a pretty good job of the Watergate investigation. It helped when the Court said Nixon had to hand over the tapes--presumably partly because Congress had made a prima facie case of obstruction of justice. The Billy Clinton impeachment was a disgrace--many Republicans remembering Nixon, and just not liking Clinton very much. All the talk about impeaching Bush Jr. was a crazy shouting match, and then the proceedings against Trump have been a childish disgrace, probably never to be mentioned in front of one's grandchildren. Now they Mayorkas' open violation of Acts of Congress is a nothingburger? Funny.

planetgeo said...

The appropriateness of this action (and its insufficiency) will become abundantly clear when "the attack" by the imbedded invaders finally begins.

Dave Begley said...

It’s despotic to let 10m illegal aliens into the country.

Mike of Snoqualmie said...

Mayorkas failed to enforce the immigration laws.Just following orders doesn't cut it. He could have resigned after Bribe me!Biden's illegal order. He didn't. He needs to be removed from office.

WWIII Joe Biden, Husk-Puppet + America's Putin said...

All of Biden's men are following orders from the mob king pin.

Skeptical Voter said...

I believe that President Andrew Johnson was impeached over "policy differences" or for "failue to enforce the laws". The specific laws in questiopn were the harsh Reconstruction laws and policies that the hardliners in Congress wanted to impose on the South in the aftermath of the Civil War.

Of course you would not, and could not expect the poorly educated ahistoric illiterates who infest the newsrooms at the New York Times to know that. Which is why they can write such codswallop.

And I did not hear them whining when San Fran Nan decided to impeach Trump twice.

boatbuilder said...

If the Executive branch (or in this case an Executive branch officer) decides, as a matter of policy, not to enforce the laws properly enacted by Congress under the authority granted to them by the Constitution, what is the Constitutional remedy? How else does the Congress enforce it's authority?

boatbuilder said...

If the Executive branch (or in this case an Executive branch officer) decides, as a matter of policy, not to enforce the laws properly enacted by Congress under the authority granted to them by the Constitution, what is the Constitutional remedy? How else does the Congress enforce it's authority?

Tim said...

"Homeland security". Millions of unvetted aliens across the border. Obviuosly didn't do his job. By design. Nuke DC.

chickelit said...

Trump can run with this and he should. The Biden immigration policy is deeply unpopular and President Biden has yet to say why he’s in favor of open borders.

chickelit said...

Mayorkas is just a little Eichmann following orders.
Like Eichmann, Mayorkas takes orders directly from the top. Unlike Eichmann, Mayorkas’ boss is not dead and can be held accountable. Biden himself could be impeached for his inexplicable border policy.

Wince said...

Why didn’t House Republicans cite federal criminal law in the articles of impeachment?

hombre said...

Which party has been using impeachment for partisan warfare? Remind me.

I don't know if gross incompetence or deliberately destroying border security are grounds. But in addition to lying to Congress, next to Biden, Mayorkas will prove to be the most destructive government official in modern history.

Big Mike said...

I get that Mayorkas was “just following orders.” That didn’t save Nazis from a hangman’s noose after WWII nor should it have saved Mayorkas from impeachment. Now 210 Dumbocrats will have to defend their votes this fall, and some may find that uncomfortable.

Bob Boyd’s comment at 7:17 is worth reading, but let’s remember that Rich, Gadfly, Howard the Fool, Freder, cookie, et. al., believe that laws should never be applied to high-ranking Democrats.

NMObjectivist said...

Failing to enforce the law is a policy choice?

Mr. T. said...

Lying under oath to Congress...

Falsely stated that border agents were whipping migrants...

What was that about no crime justifying impeachment???

Crazy World said...

FJB had a horrible day which means a great day for America. Chocolate chip indeed

Quaestor said...

"... instead effectively declaring the policy choices Mr. Mayorkas has carried out a constitutional crime."

"Constitutional crime" is meaningless bilge. Impeachment is a remedy against high crimes and misdemeanors. Article One of the Articles of Impeachment accuses Myorkas of "willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law". That's a straight-up working definition of crime. The Patriot Act that created the Homeland Security cabinet position grants no enforcement discretion to the Secretary. Homeland Security was created specifically to plug discretionary holes in the intelligence and immigration apparatus that may have contributed to the 9-11 attacks.

Quaestor said...

"reducing what was once Congress’s most potent tool to remove despots from power"

Potent tool? Shear pornography! What the fuck goes through their collective mind over on Eight Avenue?

As others have noted, NYT's language here is total excrement. An actual despot would chuckle over a true bill of impeachment while his minions executed Congress with piano wire and meat hooks. The only "potent tool" against despotism is armed resistance. That's why Abbott has the Texas Guard and the Rangers guarding the razor wire.

Lyle Smith said...

Andrew Johnson was impeached based on policies. He wasn't Republican enough for the Republican Party.

iowan2 said...

Our structure of Government, with 3 independent branches of government, is designed that each has power to check the actions of the other two branches.
Here the Executive branch is abusing their power. They are refusing to execute the laws passed by the legislative branch. The agency is not doing the job under their jurisdiction. Congress ultimate power rests in their control of every penny spent. In this case, striping Homeland Security of cash only increases magnifies the problem.
Republicans made a weak attempt by tying funding of Biden's foreign entanglements with border security. But the Nicky Haley branch of the republican part, collapsed like a house of cards and now $billions have been approved,(with the politicians lined up for their cut of the grift) absent border security.

It borders on treason.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

The Garland Rule applies, right? No impeachment trial in the Senate until after the election.

Enigma said...

Once again the Democrats are hoisted on their own petard. They either have short memories or are all suffering from dementia along with Joe. Recall that the Dem standard for 'disqualifying' Trump and initiating a Special Counsel investigation was Hillary's made up lies about Russiagate. Then, impeaching Trump was about covering up Biden's Ukraine business dealings. So, the Dems based efforts to eject and impeach Trump on literally no evidence.

Here, there's a policy dispute but also genuine national security and legal issues. I await the testimony of the Illinois, New York, and Martha's Vineyard's sanctuary elected officials about the problems caused by Mayorkas.

One thing is for sure, the Democrats (and many anti-Trump Republicans) are playing the "Hang together or hang separately" game very well. As soon as the dam cracks some will flee and turn on the others.

Breezy said...

I have a new theory -

Though Mayorkas is head of DHS, and officially subservient to Biden, Mayorkas appears to actually be the decider wrt the border. Biden never talks about it, won’t answer questions, gives no reason why the border is open and consequently causing so much chaos across the country. We have no clear reason for this to be happening.

What if Mayorkas has intel on Biden and forced Biden to accede control to Mayorkas wrt the border? There’s certainly a lot in Biden’s closet, and Mayorkas has been around that DC circle for a while…. I don’t have details on Mayorkas’ ideology other than he’s obviously rabidly pro illegal immigration.

No proof, just spitballing here….

Mark said...

Republican House, unable to pass a border bill, decides to virtue signal to their constituents instead.

Had to do something to distract from losing Santos' seat yesterday.

Iman said...

The Despots of Power is a pretty decent name for a band, no?

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

"Constitutional crime" is meaningless bilge.

Quaestor is correct as usual but in all practicality "meaningless bilge” is squarely in Congress’s wheelhouse.

Clyde said...

Mayorkas has been an abject failure at the job he was sworn to do, which was to protect America's borders. However, he is only enacting Biden's open border policies which have allowed uncounted millions of illegal aliens to swarm across our border like locusts, eating up the resources of the American people. Removing Mayorkas would simply result in replacing him with someone equally odious. Biden and the Democrats are the problem. If they are not voted out in November, then God help our country, if it survives at all.

Rusty said...

Watch. All of a sudden the usual suspects will be all for boarder security.

Leland said...

Democrats said in their first impeachment of Trump, it was because he threatened to delay funding authorized by Congress. In short, Trump supposedly didn’t follow the law (except the funds were never delayed).

Mayorkas is accused of not following the law to enforce our borders as part of his responsibility as Homeland Security Secretary.

Bar was set by Democrats and Mayorkas hurdled it easily.

Bob Boyd said...

Why didn’t House Republicans cite federal criminal law in the articles of impeachment?

That's a great question. I don't know the answer, but these are Republicans we're talking about so we can't discount the possibility they simply looked down, saw a foot and fired at it reflexively.

Mr. Majestyk said...

To add to Bob Boyd's excellent hypotheticals, suppose the Director of the FBI directed his agents not to investigate bank robberies and, in fact, advised criminals of banks' vulnerabilities? Just a "policy difference"?

Bob Boyd said...

I just made up a joke:

Why do Republicans always shoot themselves in the foot?

Because that damn foot keeps stepping on their dicks.

Yancey Ward said...

Dereliction of duty is a just reason for impeachment. However, it really should be Mayorkas' boss, not Mayorkas himself, since Mayorkas is simply carrying out the policy set by Biden's team.

Gusty Winds said...

Not to worry. Plenty of RINO's like Senator Pierre Delecto in the Senate won't remove this guy.

But, it will be good to have the southern border debate front and center for a while.

Gusty Winds said...

Ignoring existing laws you swore to uphold and implementing policies that can destroy a nation isn't a crime?

Interesting.

mikee said...

Removing this Cabinet member for his malfeasance in office is worth it, if only to encourage the others. The Democrats in the Senate now get to publicly vote for open borders by failing to remove him from office.

wendybar said...

Mark said...
Republican House, unable to pass a border bill, decides to virtue signal to their constituents instead.

Had to do something to distract from losing Santos' seat yesterday.

2/14/24, 6:09 AM

House Republicans already passed a bill actually SECURING the border, and it is sitting on Schumers desk as we speak.

Democrats in Long Island voted to have more busses sent to them, since the guy they voted for with the capital D after his name got rid of ICE in NYC, so apparently, they want more illegals, not Law and Order.

Gusty Winds said...

Trump got impeached for asking about Biden corruption in Ukraine, and a fake insurrection.

Lowering the bar? Give us a break.

Static Ping said...

I would think that complete refusal to do your job and uphold the oath of office would be sufficient justification for impeachment. It is corruption to refuse to do your job.

I suspect the assumption of the founding fathers was that such a person would have been fired as a matter of course. The bigger assumption is that any President who actively encouraged an invasion of the country would either have been impeached and removed or, in less pleasant times, shot.

Narayanan said...

Bob Boyd said...
I just made up a joke:

Why do Republicans always shoot themselves in the foot?

Because that damn foot keeps stepping on their dicks.
======
do they while in circle formation?

Narayanan said...

Bob Boyd said...
I just made up a joke:

Why do Republicans always shoot themselves in the foot?

Because that damn foot keeps stepping on their dicks.
======
do they while in circle formation?

Rusty said...

Mark said...
"Republican House, unable to pass a border bill, "
What'd I tell ya?

Narayanan said...

owan2 said...
is designed that each has power to check the actions of the other two branches.
======
like rock paper scissors?

can judiciary check both congress and executive?
can executive check judiciary at all?

Narayanan said...

iowan2 said...
is designed that each has power to check the actions of the other two branches.
======
like rock paper scissors?

can judiciary check both congress and executive?
can executive check judiciary at all?

Harun said...

What if the Republicans decided to not run on a tax cut, but instead once in office, the head of the IRS told everyone that cheating on taxes was no longer going to be pursued as a crime.

See, its just like a tax cut but without any new laws needing to be passed.

n.n said...

Personal or professional corruption?

Biden et al be should be impeached for holding Americans hostage to the Obama ethnic Springs and CAIR with benefits.

Misinforminimalism said...

A tool to remove despots from power? I thought we didn't have despots! At least, that's what they keep telling me when they claim I don't need guns.