It's like impeaching the Treasury Secretary for running a deficit.
Hey, remember when McConnell wouldn't allow a vote
- Thread starter DANC
- Start date
You got nuthin’ Mark.
Mayorkas’ failure begins with his refusal to deter illegal border crossers. That was a deliberate choice that he even bragged about because he believes that illegals have a “right” to come here, The law is otherwise. Once he overwhelmed the system then he whined about lack of resources.
Was the article correct that he was impeached for failing to fully enforce a provision of law that every single responsible Secretary has also failed to fully enforce since it was passed in 1996, because full enforcement is logistically and physically impossible?
Because if that's the case, then it's the GOP that's got nuthin', not Mark.
Beats me. There are many statutory sections he allegedly failed to enforce.
That’s supposed to be debated in the conduction of congressional business.
Not when Mayorkas states it as an impeachment defense to a charge of not following the law.
You don't need a trial to adjudicate that. The charge is clearly political grandstanding. The Senate did the right thing by dismissing it.
Sorry, I’m not going to defend Republicans for this. I think the charges are bogus, but even if they had some tiny bit of merit they weren’t going to get a vote for conviction in the Senate. They wouldn’t even get the majority of the Republican vote. That makes the impeachment a colossal waste of time. Frankly, I think it makes our party look unserious. I liked it when the Democrats were usually the unserious party.
Removal from office doesn't require a crime be identified anyway.
Impeachment is a political process and the Dems sure didn't hesitate to use it against Trump for a phone call and some J6 bullshit.
Jesus Christ, the guy's job title is only Director of Homeland Security. It's the law that our Homeland be protected, yet we've got people on the terrorist watch list entering the country, as well as those wanted for crimes in othercountries.
He's not securing the Homeland.
You can't be this ****ing stupid. Can you?
Exactly. The 'lack of resources' is only a recent excuse. Never heard a peep about it until the howling of Democrat mayors started.
That’s too bad, Aloha.
The Biden Administration and Mayorkas in particular destroyed our border security laws and the asylum laws without a hint of congressional input. And that was their clearly stated intent. If you can believe the polling data, the Biden Brain Trust can’t muster any important support for its border mess. And I don’t buy for a millisecond the claims that they lacked resources. They redirected the resources. And then they incurred millions in penalties for the sudden termination of the wall construction contracts not to mention the millions in construction materials wasting away.
I know gross incompetence isn’t grounds for impeachment. But if there any grounds that reach beyond the criminal parameters of high crimes and misdemeanors, like many scholars believe, deliberate refusal to perform the duties of the office must qualify. This is an impeachment that should have seen a trial to preserve the rule of law. We can’t have any administration be so loosey goosey with statutory requirements.
And FWIW, we haven’t seen anything yet. Have you seen Biden’s administrative rewrite of Title IX?
No matter how repulsive Trumps personality is, we can’t use Trump as a launching pad for Biden and the Democrats. Bill Barr got it right. Ya gotta vote Trump.
What the House Republicans are specifically saying he's not doing wasn't done during the Trump administration either.
I just can't take them seriously. I'm not sure why the sane Republicans went along with the insane faction of the Freedom Caucus on this one. I suppose they think it's a no consequence way for them to pick up the MAGA voters in their districts. They all knew it was going nowhere.
Denver Mayor Mike Johnston is proposing $45 million in cuts to the city budget to fund a migrants response program the city projects will cost $90 million through 2024. The proposed cuts come from all over the city's departments and offices.
These cuts include to police. This migrant burden on local communities is unprecedented and is seen in many places across the country. The migrant tsunami is the result of specific Mayorkas and Biden policies that include refusal to enforce border security and obliterating the sane asylum processes. This is nowhere near the same as what happened in previous administrations. Previous GOP administrations enforced the law in good faith. . Obama busted it. The link you posted is misleading as hell.Edit: And I’m not a big fan of the freedom caucus either, especially with their position about the speakership. But it is a mistake to dismiss the impeachment just cuz the freedom caucus supports it. This impeachment strikes at the very basis of executive authority and should be aired.
Start on page 3. He violated Congressional law repeatedly.
Plus, on Page 16, it makes clear Mayorkas lied to Congress. Isn't lying to Congress grounds for impeachment?
(1) Alejandro N. Mayorkas knowingly made14 false statements to Congress that the border is ‘‘se15 cure’’, that the border is ‘‘no less secure than it was16 previously’’, that the border is ‘‘closed’’, and that17 DHS has ‘‘operational control’’ of the border (as18 that term is defined in the Secure Fence Act of19 2006).20
(2) Alejandro N. Mayorkas knowingly made21 false statements to Congress regarding the scope22 and adequacy of the vetting of the thousands of Af23 ghans who were airlifted to the United States and24 then granted parole following the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan after President Biden’s precipitous2 withdrawal of United States forces.3
(3) Alejandro N. Mayorkas knowingly made4 false statements that apprehended aliens with no5 legal basis to remain in the United States were6 being quickly removed.7
(4) Alejandro N. Mayorkas knowingly made8 false statements supporting the false narrative that9 U.S. Border Patrol agents maliciously whipped ille10 gal aliens.11
(5) Alejandro N. Mayorkas failed to comply12 with multiple subpoenas issued by congressional13 committees.
Etcetera
It's only different in terms of how they balance priorities. That's a policy disagreement. The actual legal grounds for the impeachment as stated would apply to his predecessors, as well. That's why this clearly wasn't serious, and doesn't deserve you trying to make it serious. It was political theater, nothing more.
The Biden administration changed the asylum standards, the asylum process and the due process for both. This was not done by any normal administrative process because the law didn’t delegate such authority. In fact the recent immigration law changes would have codified Biden border policy. If this is just policy, why change the law? Arguably there is some overlap between policy and enforcement, but the Administration went far beyond any question of enforcement policy. In fact, Biden and Mayorkas promised to do this and they did it using executive orders. Then they said the process was broken. In no way does Biden reflect public opinion. So much for democracy.
The democrats set a horrible precedent with their vote. I hope Trump wouldn’t act similarly if he wins, but if he did, you can bet your sweet bippy the Dems will bring impeachment.
For a phone call….you sound like Kelvin Sampson. What you meant to say was trying to bribe already allocated funds to dig up dirt on my opponent. J6 Bullshit. Yeah, trying to overturn an election by violence, again such bullshit. Even Republicans were done with Trump after that. Well, until he called them down to Mar a Largo and persuaded them otherwise. One of these days we may see the blackmail dirt the Don is using to keep everyone in line.
Now you're not being serious. The immigration bill would have done no such thing. You're substituting right wing taking points for substantive thought.
The bill obliterated the distinction between refugees and asylum seekers. It codified Biden’s policy.
It certainly wasn't on the level of "If the prosecutor isn't fired by the time I leave, you ain't gettin' the $6 Billion"
There are pages of law and books of regulations that cover this.
Fundamentally . . .
Refugees are those about whom the United States has a humanitarian concern
Assylum seekers are those who have a legitimate fear of persecution.
There obviously is some overlap.
A Democrat would say no because their agenda is more important than law.
I'm still trying to understand why they should be treated differently. If the law says they should be, can you explain to me the rationale? To me it's a distinction without a difference.
And yet I haven't seen anything showing dems and mayorkas are doing anything against the law or even ignoring a law. Maybe Republicans should have passed the bill that strengthened the border. But then if they did that, then what would they have to complain about?
And don't lecture anyone about being more important than the law when your party thinks Trump is above the law. Your post is projecting your party onto the other side.
You ought to be Mayorkas’ assistant. He doesn’t understand the difference either.
So you got nuthin'. I'm laying some Socratic on you and you fold. Weak sauce.
No you aren’t and you aren’t very good at this. If you want to argue the wisdom of the law, I have neither the time or interest.
I’m suggesting Mayorkas didn’t follow the law and that failure is deliberate because he also doesn’t agree with the wisdom of the law.
Last edited:
So what are his predecessors' excuses? None of them followed the letter of the law either.
The ones under Republicans were doing their best and that's all we can ask for.
