"Trump Says He Will Announce V.P. Pick Today."

The NYT reports.

The convention began as the stream of good news for Mr. Trump turned into a torrent. Already lifted by what some supporters call a miraculous intervention during the shooting... the former president was handed an unexpected gift on Monday. A judge he appointed, Aileen Cannon, flouted decades of precedent to dismiss in its entirety the [documents] case... 

The veepstakes is down to three: Mr. Vance, Mr. Rubio, and Mr. Burgum. Mr. Trump told Bret Baier of Fox News that he would announce his choice on Monday but did not say when. Trump campaign officials had envisioned a grand entrance for the former president on the first night, with his pick joining him on the stage for a big reveal. But the pick might be announced during the day instead....

Does RFK Jr. still not have Secret Service protection?

I saw — blogged in the previous post — that RFK Jr. just called Joe Biden the first President in history to have "used his power over the Secret Service to deny Secret Service protection to one of his political opponents, for political reasons."

Here's an article in Newsweek from last month: "RFK Jr.'s Latest Secret Service Request Cites Specific Assassination Threat":

"Let's get our fact straight. There's no crisis at the border. C'mon..."

Funny:

Still brilliant, never not been brilliant... pic.twitter.com/VWPlm59l6N

— James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) March 5, 2024

Not so funny:

Treason indeed! Ushering in vast numbers of illegals is why Secretary Mayorkas was impeached by the House.

They are importing voters. This is why groups on the far left fight so hard to stop voter ID requirements, under the absurd guise of protecting the right to vote. https://t.co/WhtVFyS6sa

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 5, 2024

By the way, Elon's position — that Democrats are rigging the 2024 election by strategically dispersing immigrants (presumably to cities in swing states) — feels like a new version of the 2020 "election denial." He's getting the jump on the accusation of "treason." 

The funny/terrifying mix is painfully strong.

"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).

"The United States House of Representatives rejected impeachment charges against Alejandro N. Mayorkas, the homeland security secretary..."

"... on Tuesday after a small group of Republicans broke with their party and refused to support what amounted to a partisan indictment of President Biden’s immigration policies. The 216-214 vote dealt a stunning defeat to Speaker Mike Johnson, who had expressed confidence that he had the votes to charge Mr. Mayorkas with high crimes and misdemeanors for failing to lock down the United States border with Mexico amid a migrant surge, a move that Republicans have been promising for more than a year."

The NYT reports.

Good. As I wrote on January 28th, "What's the 'high crime'/'misdemeanor' bringing this policy disagreement within the constitutional power to impeach?"

Using the impeachment process "as a political weapon" is a "dangerous precedent," a "pointless sideshow."

I'm reading "The GOP’s ridiculous move to impeach Mayorkas" (CNN).

While our broken immigration system is a serious matter, this impeachment push is not. There is no legitimate basis for impeaching [Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro] Mayorkas, and House Republicans have not presented any evidence that he has violated the law. Instead, they are on the verge of abusing one of the most powerful mechanisms of government to score political points, potentially setting a dangerous precedent.... Any proceedings against him will only be a distraction from the humanitarian crisis at our doorstep and the lack of leadership in Congress.... The impeachment process is not intended to be used as a political weapon. The move to impeach Mayorkas is a pointless sideshow and deserves to fail.

"House Republicans on Sunday released two articles of impeachment against Alejandro N. Mayorkas, the homeland security secretary..."

"... charging President Biden’s top immigration official with refusing to uphold the law and breaching the public trust in his handling of a surge of migration at the U.S. border with Mexico.... The charges against Mr. Mayorkas... are all but certain to fizzle in the Democratic-led Senate.... But the process would yield a remarkable election-year political spectacle...."

The NYT reports.

What's the "high crime"/"misdemeanor" bringing this policy disagreement within the constitutional power to impeach?