Republicon clown show failed again. Senate Dismisses Impeachment Charges Against Mayorkas Without a Trial

[robosmith]

Senate Dismisses Impeachment Charges Against Mayorkas Without a Trial

Quote

Democrats quickly swept aside the articles of impeachment accusing the homeland security secretary of refusing to enforce immigration laws and breach of public trust, calling them unconstitutional.

 

The Senate on Wednesday dismissed the impeachment case against Alejandro N. Mayorkas, the homeland security secretary, voting along party lines before his trial got underway to sweep aside two charges accusing him of failing to enforce immigration laws and breaching the public trust.

By a vote of 51 to 48, with one senator voting “present,” the Senate ruled that the first charge was unconstitutional because it failed to meet the constitutional bar of a high crime or misdemeanor. Republicans united in opposition except for Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, the lone “present” vote, while Democrats were unanimous in favor.

Ms. Murkowski joined her party in voting against dismissal of the second count on the same grounds; it fell along party lines on a 51-to-49 vote.

Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader, moved to dismiss each charge, arguing that a cabinet member cannot be impeached and removed merely for carrying out the policies of the administration he serves.

Republicons again look like FOOLS.

[Hodad]

This impeachment was absolutely a farcical political stunt. Literally no meat on the bone. It shouldn't have happened, but given the fact that it did, I'm not sure dismissal is any better for the country.

As is often the case, the damage will be due later. The Republicans have established impeachment as a political stunt rather than a constitutional remedy for real problems. In response, the Democrats have established summary dismissal of impeachment along party lines.

So where does that leave impeachment as a tool the next time something real comes along? The next time someone like Trump tries to extort foreign leaders for political campaign assistance?

Edited April 18 by Hodad

[robosmith]

8 minutes ago, Hodad said:

This impeachment was absolutely a farcical political stunt. Literally no meat on the bone. It shouldn't have happened, but given the fact that it did, I'm not sure dismissal is any better for the country.

As is often the case, the damage will be due later. The Republicans have established impeachment as a political stunt rather than a constitutional remedy for real problems. In response, the Democrats have established he dismissal impeachment counts along party lines.

So where does that leave impeachment as a tool the next time something real comes along? The next time someone like Trump tries to extort foreign leaders for political campaign assistance?

It leaves everyone scrambling to come up with REAL HIGH CRIMES BEFORE voting out impeachment charges.

[Nationalist]

So the Democrats break with precident, and deny a trial. How typical of the slime.

No wonder the Libbies are afraid of Trump seeking some payback. They all know they deserve it for abusing politics and the legal system.

Edited April 17 by Nationalist

[robosmith]

1 minute ago, Nationalist said:

So the Democrats break with precident, and deny a trial. How typical of the slime.

No wonder the Libbies are afraid of Trump seeking so payback. They all know they deserve it for abusing politics and the legal system.

You mean YOU believe YOU KNOW.... 

Thanks for proving that your cynicism fuels your cognitive dissonance.

The precedent which was broken by Republicons, was pretending policy disagreements are crimes. 

[gatomontes99]

Apparently some people are above the law.

[robosmith]

1 minute ago, gatomontes99 said:

Apparently some people are above the law.

Political impeachments are not about "the law."

Policy disagreements are NOT illegal.

However, leveraging official power to extort foreigners for campaign advantages are, just like EVERY foreign campaign contribution.

 

[gatomontes99]

2 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Political impeachments are not about "the law."

Policy disagreements are NOT illegal.

However, leveraging official power to extort foreigners for campaign advantages are, just like EVERY foreign campaign contribution.

 

It isn't a policy disagreement. Per the 2006 law:

Republicans have long maintained that Mayorkas has been derelict in his duty to secure the border, citing a 2006 law that requires the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to maintain “operational control” over the border. In a report gathered by the Homeland Security Committee last year, Republicans also argued that Mayorkas has failed to “enforce laws passed by Congress” and to “fulfill his oath of office.”

What is the point of Congress passing a law and the president signing it if the beurocrats will just ignore it? The message should have been sent that no one is above the law. But, alas, that wasn't the case. The Democratic party will send the message that "laws are for thee, not for me."

[robosmith]

16 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

It isn't a policy disagreement. Per the 2006 law:

Republicans have long maintained that Mayorkas has been derelict in his duty to secure the border, citing a 2006 law that requires the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to maintain “operational control” over the border. In a report gathered by the Homeland Security Committee last year, Republicans also argued that Mayorkas has failed to “enforce laws passed by Congress” and to “fulfill his oath of office.”

What is the point of Congress passing a law and the president signing it if the beurocrats will just ignore it? The message should have been sent that no one is above the law. But, alas, that wasn't the case. The Democratic party will send the message that "laws are for thee, not for me."

Your own cite explains the impeachment problems:

Quote

“The first article is essentially a claim that the various policy decisions of the secretary, with which they happen to disagree, are ‘violations of law,’ which have produced, in their view, a whole bunch of bad consequences,” Bowman said. “Their claims that he has violated the law [are] wrong because virtually every one of them is an argument about the way in which the secretary has interpreted the frankly contradictory provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act and other immigration legislation.”

 

The second article charges Mayorkas with breach of the public trust, accusing him of making false statements and obstructing oversight of the Department of Homeland Security.

On the “obstruction” front, Green, the committee chairman, invited Mayorkas to testify at the committee’s second impeachment hearing on Jan. 18 and, while Mayorkas responded that he had a scheduling conflict and offered to testify on another date, Green declined the offer and moved forward with the hearing. It was held on a day Mayorkas was preparing to host a delegation of Mexican officials to discuss migration issues at the U.S.-Mexico border and also was spotted on the other side of the Capitol, negotiating with the Senate on a border security deal.

Shortly thereafter, Green issued a letter outlining 31 requests to the department that remained “partially or entirely unsatisfied,” signaling an obstruction charge to come. Homeland Security officials noted that Mayorkas already testified before Congress more than any other Cabinet member — 27 times in 35 months — and that the department provided 90 witnesses for committee hearings since the start of the Biden administration, along with over 13,000 pages of documents and data in response to Green’s requests.

 

On the “false statements” claim, Republicans argue that Mayorkas lied to Congress by claiming that the border is “secure,” “closed,” “no less secure than it was previously,” and that DHS has “operational control” of the border as defined in the Secure Fence Act of 2006.

Bowman, the law professor, argued these claims have no legal basis given that Republicans are focusing on semantics rather than law.

“They basically don’t like the adjectives and adverbs that Mayorkas uses to describe the success of his own department,” he said.

 

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

You mean YOU believe YOU KNOW.... 

Thanks for proving that your cynicism fuels your cognitive dissonance.

The precedent which was broken by Republicons, was pretending policy disagreements are crimes. 

Ya you keep tell yourself that sweety...while anyone else knows the truth.

[gatomontes99]

34 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Your own cite explains the impeachment problems:

 

Ah, but, is that actually what happened? He has flat out ignored the requirement to secure the border. That is what the trial would have discussed. It isn't a policy issue but an issue as to whether or not the government has to follow its own laws. Per this miscarraige of justice, they don't.

[robosmith]

27 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Ya you keep tell yourself that sweety...while anyone else knows the truth.

The truth is, the impeachment FAILED because Democratic Senators will face no penalty for failing to convict Mayorkas of a non-crime. Obviously the voters are the judges and you HAVE NO SAY, but I DO.

[robosmith]

Just now, gatomontes99 said:

Ah, but, is that actually what happened? He has flat out ignored the requirement to secure the border. That is what the trial would have discussed. It isn't a policy issue but an issue as to whether or not the government has to follow its own laws. Per this miscarraige of justice, they don't.

He has not "ignored the requirement," as your cite says, there are funding issues and this is a huge and dynamic problem that has gotten worse due to massive displacements and gang wars. 

It is essentially a LEVEL OF EFFORT responsibility with NO GUARANTEES of performance. IOW, you've been snookered by Republicon political BULLSHIT.

[gatomontes99]

9 minutes ago, robosmith said:

He has not "ignored the requirement," as your cite says, there are funding issues and this is a huge and dynamic problem that has gotten worse due to massive displacements and gang wars. 

It is essentially a LEVEL OF EFFORT responsibility with NO GUARANTEES of performance. IOW, you've been snookered by Republicon political BULLSHIT.

That somehow wasn't an issue when Trump was President. It was also something Joe begged for, wasn't it? Or do you deny that he said he wanted a flood of migrants at the southern border?

[robosmith]

1 minute ago, gatomontes99 said:

That somehow wasn't an issue when Trump was President. It was also something Joe begged for, wasn't it? Or do you deny that he said he wanted a flood of migrants at the southern border?

I DENY ^your OPINION without evidence is a true representation of REALITY.

You have AGAIN been snookered by Republicon political BULLSHIT.

Of course, your question marks show you're not even sure it's true.

[gatomontes99]

12 minutes ago, robosmith said:

I DENY ^your OPINION without evidence is a true representation of REALITY.

You have AGAIN been snookered by Republicon political BULLSHIT.

Of course, your question marks show you're not even sure it's true.

No. I'm sure. I'm asking you a question to gauge your ability to acknowledge reality.

As I stated in the other thread, opinions and facts are not dependent on links. But, I will give you the links because it will end this little tiff.

Trump did a better job of preventing birder crossings: https://www.statista.com/statistics/329256/alien-apprehensions-registered-by-the-us-border-patrol/

Joe Biden called for a surge of illegal immigration at the southern border: https://www.chicagotribune.com/2021/03/24/column-biden-called-for-the-border-surge-and-now-he-owns-it/

Do you still deny reality?

Edited April 18 by gatomontes99

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said:

Ah, but, is that actually what happened? He has flat out ignored the requirement to secure the border. That is what the trial would have discussed. It isn't a policy issue but an issue as to whether or not the government has to follow its own laws. Per this miscarraige of justice, they don't.

That's just silly. The laws are being followed exactly as they were before the pandemic. The only thing that has changed is the volume of would-be immigrants.

[gatomontes99]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

That's just silly. The laws are being followed exactly as they were before the pandemic. The only thing that has changed is the volume of would-be immigrants.

No they aren't. They expanded the definition of asylum for starters.

[Aristides]

6 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Apparently some people are above the law.

So give them an actual trial in a court instead of a political show. 

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said:

No they aren't. They expanded the definition of asylum for starters.

Who and HOW? Provide a link or ^this is JUST YOUR OPINION.

[robosmith]

3 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

No. I'm sure. I'm asking you a question to gauge your ability to acknowledge reality.

As I stated in the other thread, opinions and facts are not dependent on links. But, I will give you the links because it will end this little tiff.

Anything you post here without EVIDENCE will be considered YOUR OPINION until you PROVE IT TRUE.

3 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Trump did a better job of preventing birder crossings: https://www.statista.com/statistics/329256/alien-apprehensions-registered-by-the-us-border-patrol/

^Paywall link cannot be read.

3 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Joe Biden called for a surge of illegal immigration at the southern border: https://www.chicagotribune.com/2021/03/24/column-biden-called-for-the-border-surge-and-now-he-owns-it/

^Paywall link cannot be read.

3 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Do you still deny reality?

You have a tenuous grasp on the reality of the necessity of justifying your OPINIONS.

Anyone can post their OPINIONS here with ZERO credibility.

[Nationalist]

11 hours ago, robosmith said:

The truth is, the impeachment FAILED because Democratic Senators will face no penalty for failing to convict Mayorkas of a non-crime. Obviously the voters are the judges and you HAVE NO SAY, but I DO.

Failing to convict? They wouldn't even allow a trial. They broke precedent, tucked their tails between their legs and ran away.

I can "influence" my family down there and folks who read this site. And I will continue to do so.

[gatomontes99]

7 hours ago, robosmith said:

Who and HOW? Provide a link or ^this is JUST YOUR OPINION.

Nitrogen makes up 78.1% of the atmosphere.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/16/asylum-standards-biden-494918

It is like you don't consume any news.

[gatomontes99]

7 hours ago, robosmith said:

Anything you post here without EVIDENCE will be considered YOUR OPINION until you PROVE IT TRUE.

^Paywall link cannot be read.

^Paywall link cannot be read.

You have a tenuous grasp on the reality of the necessity of justifying your OPINIONS.

Anyone can post their OPINIONS here with ZERO credibility.

Yeah, I'm not the one calling the free sites pay wall links.

[Hodad]

11 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

No they aren't. They expanded the definition of asylum for starters.

 

2 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Nitrogen makes up 78.1% of the atmosphere.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/16/asylum-standards-biden-494918

It is like you don't consume any news.

A. Please cite the relevant portion of material you are trying to cite. Naked links are lazy, and almost always used, as in this case, to create the appearance of evidence without any substance. Sure enough, if you had read your own citation you'd see that the Biden administration didn't "expand the definition of asylum." They reversed Trump era policy opinions: " In June 2021, the Justice Department revoked the legal opinions that had disqualified migrants fleeing domestic or gang violence from asylum, and said those cases would be governed by the rules Mr. Biden ordered to define "particular social group."  To be clear this doesn't even mean ungoverned, but simply through a different process. Meanwhile...

B. Because, again, if you had read your citation (even just the headline!) you'd see that it undermines the larger point you are making. "After promising to expand asylum, Biden moves to limit access amid record border arrivals." It's literally and article about Biden limiting asylum access.

C. None of this is relevant AT ALL because none of it has nothing to do with Mayorkas. Mayorkas didn't set this policy--that would be the POTUS and the AG. And even if he had, it would not be a case of "flat out ignored the requirement to secure the border" or "the government not following its own laws. Policy and legal opinion change--as they changed under Trump--but that's not ignoring the law. 

And at the root level that's why this impeachment was just asinine. Mayorkas is "guilty" of enforcing the laws and policies of the administration. Exactly as every other cabinet member in history. What did Nielsen do under Trump? Oh, yeah, the exact same thing. She enforced the policy of the administration. That's the job.

What you're actually supporting here is the idea that every cabinet member can--and should--be impeached by the minority party simply for doing the job of a cabinet member in terms of executing administration policy. Literally, every single one, for every POTUS would be guilty of the same. 

It's a silly position.

 

Edited April 18 by Hodad