GOP’s ‘dereliction of duty’ impeachment argument gets skeptical reviews 

Republicans eager to impeach a Biden administration official have rallied around a new phrase to justify the rarely used move, accusing President Biden and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas of “dereliction of duty.” 

The term, borrowed from the military, allows a court martial to punish service members who fail to obey orders or carry out their duties. 

But experts say the GOP’s basis for removing either man from office is an odd fit for impeachment, which requires demonstrating high crimes or misdemeanors. 

“It sounds quasi-official — it has a sort of military ring to it. But it's not as though high crimes and misdemeanors and dereliction of duty go together. … It's not traditionally one of the impeachment concepts that you would find in the panoply of presidential mistakes,” said Claire Finkelstein, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania who specializes in national security law and democratic governance.  

“They're looking for a phrase that will kind of draw people in because it sounds semi-official, but will not actually require them to say something true and correct, like, ‘The President has actually done such and such,’” she added. 

The impeachment resolution for Biden introduced by Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) accuses Biden of dereliction of duty and abuses of power in connection with how he has handled the border. 

“Since his first day in office, President Biden has trampled on the Constitution through his dereliction of duty under Article 2, to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. Instead of enforcing our immigration laws, he has lawlessly ignored them,” Boebert said on the House floor this month before Republicans voted to refer the measure to committee.  

Each of the four impeachment resolutions targeting Mayorkas similarly accuses him of violating his oath of office by failing to enforce immigration laws. 

The House Homeland Security Committee, which has been tasked with an investigation that would be used as the basis for any impeachment effort undertaken by House Judiciary, likewise kicked off its five-step plan with a phase dedicated to reviewing dereliction of duty. 

“The blatant disregard for the Constitution of the United States, which states that the United States Congress passes the laws and the executive branch executes those laws, is just scratching the surface to the harm Secretary Mayorkas’s dereliction of duty has done to our country,” said Mark Green (R-Tenn.), the committee's chairman, in a press conference earlier this month kicking off the formal investigation. 

“Mayorkas’s dereliction of duty has placed the safety of Americans’ second to his own personal agenda," Green added.

For Democrats, the GOP complaints over how the administration is applying — or failing to apply — the laws passed by Congress show the underlying dispute is a policy matter and therefore insufficient grounds for impeachment. 

“Dereliction of duty is something that they have created out of whole cloth,” said Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.), who served as a lead counsel to Democrats in the first impeachment of former President Trump before being elected to Congress. 

“It has never been a grounds for impeachment. It is not a high crime and misdemeanor, and it is essentially arguing that they don't like the way that President Biden and Secretary Mayorkas have been handling their jobs, which, unfortunately for them, is the consequence of elections,” Goldman said. 

Impeachment proceedings have been used four times for a president and once for a cabinet secretary. 

There are different interpretations of what constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor, and Finkelstein said while impeachment can be used for “bad acts that are not criminal, very often the impeachment charges could also be charged as crimes.” 

“President Biden and Secretary Mayorkas haven't violated the law. And I suspect that members of the GOP and Congress know that full well, and so they don't want to use any term that suggests that there may be a legal violation here. And so they're using this sort of made-up term that has a quasi-military frame to sound vaguely official, but it's really nothing that corresponds to what we would understand from the history of impeachment as a high crime and misdemeanor as the framers would have conceived,” she said. 

The dereliction of duty argument has taken a greater focus in recent weeks amid waning numbers of people arriving at the border. Earlier this year, many in the GOP argued that Mayorkas failed to follow a law that requires perfection at the border to achieve “operational control.” 

Republicans have become more focused on arguing that Biden officials have violated immigration laws, particularly those dealing with detaining and releasing migrants that arrive at the border. 

They also see a wave of fentanyl deaths as a failure to secure the border, though the vast majority of fentanyl that enters the U.S. is believed to come through ports of entry. 

The Department of Homeland Security has argued Mayorkas has acted within his authority because the U.S. simply doesn't have the capacity to detain every person that seeks to enter the country, while parole laws allow DHS to permit some migrants to enter the U.S. while they await a determination in immigration court as to securing a more permanent legal status. The department has repeatedly encouraged Congress to take action to update immigration laws. 

The White House, meanwhile, dismissed Boebert’s resolution as “staging baseless political stunts.”  

“What you would need in order to move forward with impeachment is some finding that they have violated the law,” Goldman said. 

“So the notion that he’s violated his oath of office is just simply saying that he in their view is not following the law, but what it amounts to without any evidence — and they have none — is just a disagreement about how we're dealing with the influx of migrants into this country who are largely escaping completely devastated governments [and] catastrophic situations,” he said, adding that the Biden administration has tried to deal with that “in a humane way.” 

When asked about the legal underpinnings of dereliction of duty by The Hill, Green pointed to the statutes governing the military and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). 

“The United States is not secure. His job is to secure the United States. He's failed. That's a dereliction of his duty,” Green said, noting the oath he took when entering West Point. 

“Mayorkas’s oath is the same, right? It's not to the geography of America. It's not to the flag. It’s to the Constitution, the idea of America and to the way the Constitution orchestrates how the government is to work.”  

The roots in the Uniform Code of Military Justice could be problematic for making a case. 

“Neither Biden nor Mayorkas are subject to the UCMJ because they’re both civilians,” Finkelstein said. “Dereliction of duty as a military term does not apply to the Secretary of Homeland Security, nor does it apply to the president.” 

Impatience, however, is growing among some in the Republican Party.  

Lawmakers have introduced 11 impeachment resolutions for various Biden administration officials in the past two months. 

“I would hope that it would be this year — and very soon,” Boebert told reporters last week.  

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who served as an impeachment manager for Trump’s first impeachment, dismissed the efforts as another example of Republicans “dragging down the institution of Congress.” 

“I am concerned that as they always do, they use a process that is properly applied as a precedent to abuse the process. But this is all about ingratiating yourself among MAGA members and Trump followers and it's disgraceful,” he said. 

“It’s consuming the time of Congress to keep going through these right-wing exercises designed to gain Trump's favor.” 

Oversight Dems argue GOP overlooked information undercutting Biden allegation

A Ukrainian oligarch who ran the energy company that hired Hunter Biden to serve on its board told associates of Rudy Giuliani that Burisma never had any contacts with then-Vice President Biden while his son worked at the company.

The conversation with Mykola Zlochevsky, part of the package of information received by lawmakers during former President Trump’s first impeachment, was highlighted by the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee as evidence undercutting a GOP-led probe into an alleged bribery scheme.

“Mr. Zlochevsky’s statements are just one of the many that have debunked the corruption allegations against President Biden that were first leveled by Rudy Giuliani and have been reviewed by former President Trump’s own Justice Department,” Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) wrote in a letter to House Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.).

The clash between the panel’s two parties rests on a series of unverified tips.

Under the Trump administration, the FBI and Justice Department were unable to corroborate a tip from a confidential source relaying a conversation heard secondhand that alleged Biden, while vice president, accepted a bribe. Comer has based much of his investigation on this tip, memorized in a FD-1023 form used by the FBI to document such interactions.

Raskin’s letter resurfaces a conversation with Zlochevsky — one arranged through a series of Giuliani associates in which the oligarch speaks of his decision to hire Hunter Biden.

“No one from Burisma ever had any contacts with VP Biden or people working for him during Hunter Biden's engagement,” Zlochevsky says in the exchange, which appears to be with Vitaly Pruss, whom the letter describes as “another long-time associate of Mr. Giuliani who was a close friend of Mr. Zlochevsky.”

However, the conversation was turned over to Giuliani by Lev Parnas, a Ukrainian who was later convicted of making illegal campaign contributions to former President Trump. 

Zlochevsky also answered “no” when asked if then-Vice President Biden or his staff “assisted you or your company in any way with business deals or meetings with world leaders or any other assistance.”

Raskin argues the information shows that Zlochevsky “squarely rebutted” allegations that are at the core of the GOP probe.

“As part of the impeachment inquiry against then-President Trump, Congress learned that Mr. Zlochevsky, the Ukrainian oligarch and the owner of Burisma, whom Republican Committee Members appear to have identified as the source of the allegations memorialized in the Form FD-1023, squarely rebutted these allegations in 2019,” he wrote.

“Despite being interviewed as part of a campaign by Mr. Giuliani and his proxies in 2019 and 2020 to procure damaging information about the Biden family, Mr. Zlochevsky explicitly and unequivocally denied those allegations.”

Raskin, however, also pointed to comments from Trump-era Attorney General Bill Barr that there "are a lot of agendas in the Ukraine, there are a lot of cross-currents, and we can’t take anything we receive from the Ukraine at face value.”

Comer has called on the FBI to release the form that lawmakers reviewed in a secure location weeks ago.

“If Ranking Member Raskin thinks there is nothing to the FD-1023 form, then he should join us in calling on the FBI to make it public,” Comer said.

“This unclassified record stands on its own and memorializes a confidential human source’s conversations with a Burisma executive dating back to 2015. The Burisma executive claims then-Vice President Biden solicited and received a $5 million bribe in exchange for certain actions.” 

In the conversation, Zlochevsky also says that they never asked Hunter Biden to make any outreach to the State Department.

“We never approved or asked him to conduct those meetings on behalf of Burisma,” he says.

Still, he makes clear that Hunter Biden’s hiring, as well as that of his former business partner Devon Archer, was part of an effort to help strengthen ties between Burisma and the international community.

“We wanted to [b]uild Burisma as international company. It was very important to have strong board. So when we review resumes of biden and archer they both had great resumes. We also thought it would help in Ukraine to have strong international board figures with great relationships in the United States and Europe,” Zlochevsky says.

“We believe it was worth it. It had it own advantages and disadvantages. But it general we believe our company benefited greatly from this relationship.”

GOP divided on first impeachment target

The growing zeal among House Republicans to launch impeachment proceedings has hit an early snag: There's no agreement on which Biden administration figure to target.

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) this week threw his support behind a possible impeachment inquiry into Attorney General Merrick Garland — just days after the GOP conference sparred internally over a resolution from Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) to impeach President Biden.

And a possible Biden impeachment came on the heels of an announcement from House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mark Green (R-Tenn.) that the panel would kick off the formal investigation of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas needed to proceed with an impeachment inquiry.

Since the GOP takeover of the House, much of the impeachment energy has been focused on Mayorkas, with disagreements over the border fueling several impeachment resolutions in the weeks after lawmakers were sworn in.

But a drop in border crossings in recent months has largely taken the issue out of the national headlines, while at the same time, new accusations surrounding the Justice Department’s handling of the investigation into Hunter Biden have heightened the GOP’s outrage at Garland. It was the latter issue that prompted this week’s surprise statement from McCarthy. 

“If the whistleblowers' allegations are true, this will be a significant part of a larger impeachment inquiry into Merrick Garland's weaponization of DOJ,” McCarthy wrote on Twitter.

In May and June alone, lawmakers introduced 11 different impeachment resolutions for top Biden officials, five of them sponsored by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.). Aside from Biden, Garland and Mayorkas, Greene also has her sights on FBI Director Christopher Wray and Matthew Graves, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. 

But until recently, McCarthy in many respects had pumped the brakes on some of the conference’s loudest impeachment cheerleaders.

He’s repeatedly said impeachment can’t be seen as a political endeavor and, as recently as Friday, said that any efforts have “got to reach the constitutional level of impeachment.”

Mayorkas targeted initially 

In a trip to the border late last year, widely expected to be a warning shot that Republicans would kick off an impeachment of Mayorkas, McCarthy instead called for his resignation and signaled any plans to boot the secretary would be part of a lengthy process.

“If Secretary Mayorkas does not resign, House Republicans will investigate; every order, every action and every failure will determine whether we can begin impeachment inquiry,” McCarthy said last November.

But he’s facing impatience from far-right members of the conference, many with hopes of playing a central role in any impeachment efforts, which would quickly devour the political oxygen in Washington and command the national media spotlight.

Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) who introduced the first Mayorkas impeachment resolution last year but trailed another such bill this year, said it's not clear when such a measure would move forward or whose name would be on it.

“I introduced mine first — and then I introduced it forth again. … I’ve probably ticked off the leadership too much for them to allow mine to be the one, to be the vehicle. But I still think mine is most comprehensive,” he said.

“I don't know if we'll introduce a new one or just try to amend this one as it moves forward. But I just think that more and more people are starting to come around to the necessity to impeach the guy.”

Rep. Pat Fallon (R-Texas), who introduced the first Mayorkas impeachment articles this year, would also like to be involved.

“I was the first one out of the gate, but I don't really care. You know, success has 1,000 fathers,” he said.

“I’d like to lead the effort, but even if I could just be a lieutenant of someone who does if it's not me, I’m perfectly content with that as well. Because we are a team — we're supposed to be, the 222 of us — and I definitely think he needs to be replaced.”

Border issues draw attention to Biden

The Mayorkas bills have been complicated by Boebert’s resolution, which House Republicans voted to refer to the House Homeland Security Committee, as well as House Judiciary, for consideration. 

Green has been steadfastly focused on Mayorkas, earlier this month laying out a five-phase plan for an investigation into the secretary. Those findings would be turned over to leaders of the Judiciary Committee, led by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), who would then decide how to move forward.

Though Boebert’s resolution, like those focused on Mayorkas, deems impeachment a fitting response for what Republicans see as a mishandling the border, Democrats have dismissed the plan as trying to boot someone from office over a policy disagreement rather than high crimes and misdemeanors.

It also means a shift for the House Homeland Security Committee, which must now wrap Biden into an investigation that had been squarely focused on the effects of specific border policies carried out by Mayorkas's department. 

“We kicked off this five-phase investigation digging into what I believe is Mayorkas’s failures. We just started the ‘dereliction of duty’ phase a week ago. We've had a committee hearing, we've had two subcommittee hearings, we’re doing our transcribed interviews with all the sector chiefs and things like this,” Green told The Hill.

“Now, the House has obviously asked us to add Biden's actions to the stuff that we're looking into. We'll do that for sure.” 

Boebert’s resolution is just one of five pertaining to Biden, and it's not clear how quickly it may advance, if at all.

“I would hope that it would be this year — and very soon,” Boebert told reporters last week. 

Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.), who also has a resolution to impeach Mayorkas, stressed that the founders intentionally set a high bar for its usage.

“I believe they should go through thorough and proper, vigorous debate to assigned committees,” he said. 

“The founders established the highest thresholds for impeachment, and intended it to be almost impossible to impeach a president and very difficult to impeach a secretary.”

Hunter Biden’s case takes over 

The border issues that would serve as the basis for either a Mayorkas or Biden impeachment have taken a back seat recently to news that Hunter Biden agreed to a plea deal in connection with an investigation into his failure to pay taxes.

The crux of the matter for the GOP is a whistleblower complaint to the House Ways and Means Committee, where IRS investigator Gary Shapley claimed the investigation was slow-walked by the office of U.S. Attorney David Weiss, a Trump appointee assigned to the matter under the former president.

Shapley said Weiss’s office relayed they were told they could not bring charges in D.C., where he believes the strongest case could be had regarding Hunter Biden’s tax evasion. He alleged that Graves, the U.S. attorney for D.C., would not allow Weiss to bring charges in his district.

Weiss, Garland and Graves have all countered Shapley’s testimony.

“I want to make clear that, as the Attorney General has stated, I have been granted ultimate authority over this matter, including responsibility for deciding where, when, and whether to file charges,” Weiss told House Judiciary members in a June letter.

Garland went further, saying critiques on the Hunter Biden investigation undermined faith in the department.

“I certainly understand that some have chosen to attack the integrity of the Justice Department, and its components, and its employees, by claiming that we do not treat like cases alike. This constitutes an attack on an institution that is essential to American democracy and essential to the safety of the American people. Nothing could be further from the truth,” Garland said Friday.

“You've all heard me say many times that we make our cases based on the facts and the law. These are not just words. These are what we live by.” 

Mike Lillis contributed.

Both parties hear what they want to hear during rare Durham public hearing

Special counsel John Durham was both lionized and scrutinized by lawmakers as he appeared before the House Judiciary Committee to discuss his probe into the FBI’s 2016 investigation into the Trump campaign. 

Durham provided little new information in his May report but confirmed a series of FBI missteps previously documented by the news media, including that the FBI failed to provide a full picture of the evidence when seeking a wiretap of Trump campaign aide Carter Page.  

In a rare public appearance Wednesday, Durham called his findings “sobering.” 

“The problems identified in the report are not susceptible to overnight fixes. … They cannot be addressed solely by enhancing training or additional policy requirements. Rather, what is required is accountability, both in terms of the standards to which our law enforcement personnel hold themselves and in the consequences they face for violation of laws and policies of relevance,” he said. 


More House coverage from The Hill


Over more than five hours of questioning, Republicans and Democrats zeroed in on the parts of the report most favorable to their positions.  

To Republicans, Durham’s scathing 305-page report supports their arguments about a Department of Justice and FBI that has been weaponized against former President Trump.  

Democrats argued the report backed the FBI’s initial decision to open a probe into the Trump campaign, something they view as significant, since Trump called for Durham's appointment with high expectations that he’d find damaging material on the FBI.  

Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), a chief Trump defender who has cast the FBI as “rotted to the core,” said the report served as an example that the bureau requires serious reform, as “any one of us could be next.”  

“There is [a double standard at the Department of Justice]. That has got to change, and I don't think more training, more rules is going to do it. I think we have to fundamentally change the FISA process, and we have to use the appropriations process to limit how American tax dollars are spent at the Department of Justice,” he added, referring to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which has the power to authorize a wiretap. 

Sign up for the latest from The Hill here

It was a tip from an Australian diplomat that ignited the FBI’s interest. The diplomat had spoken with Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos, who told him that Russia had damaging emails from then-competitor Hillary Clinton. It was that tip, not the later debunked Steele Dossier, that led the FBI to initiate the investigation. 

“We have many areas of disagreement across the aisle, but I am relieved that we have no disagreement about one of the fundamental conclusions of your report: that it was incumbent upon the FBI to open some form of investigation when presented with evidence that a presidential candidate and his associates are either coordinating campaign efforts with a hostile nation or being manipulated by such a hostile nation,” said Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Pa.). 

Several Democrats attacked Durham’s work, criticizing the report for not offering any recommendations for the FBI and calling attention to its failure to lead to criminal convictions. 

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) noted that five Trump campaign associates were convicted of various crimes following the Mueller investigation.  

“In contrast to multiple Trump associates who were convicted, you brought two cases to a jury trial based on this investigation, and you lost both. So I don't actually know what we're doing here, because the author of the Durham report concedes that the FBI had enough information to investigate,” he said. 

“And thank goodness the FBI did, because vulnerable Trump associates who committed crimes were held accountable. And the best way to summarize what happened is: Thank you to the brave men and women of the FBI for doing their jobs.” 

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.)

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) addresses reporters after a closed-door House Democratic Caucus meeting on Tuesday, June 6, 2023.

Republicans pivoted between complaints over the Justice Department and the treatment of Trump to possible FISA reforms that would limit law enforcement authority for spying both in the U.S. and abroad.  

“You detail how FBI personnel working on FISA applications violated protocols. They were cavalier at best, as you said, in your own words, towards accuracy and completeness. Senior FBI personnel displayed a serious lack of analytical rigor towards information that they received, especially information received from politically affiliated persons or entities and … a significant reliance on investigative and leads provided or funded by Trump's political opponents were relied upon here,” Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.) said. 

Johnson went on to lament the involvement of Peter Strzok, previously deputy assistant director the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division, who made negative comments about Trump in texts. 

“He said horrible things about President Trump, and all of his supporters by the way, how could we say he did not have political bias?” 

Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.)

Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.) leaves a closed-door House Republican Conference meeting on Tuesday, June 6, 2023.

Rep. Laurel Lee (R-Fla.) criticized the FISA application that allowed the FBI to wiretap Page. 

“A FISA application was pursued without disclosing some relevant information to prosecutors or the court, without following standard procedural rules, utilizing investigative techniques that were the most intrusive without first exhausting other techniques, and instead pursuing the most invasive method possible from the outset against Mr. Page,” she said. 

Durham was also at times berated for his work, including by those who said he did not do enough to probe FBI misdeeds after Trump said Durham’s report would reveal the “crime of the century.” Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) was also gifted time by other members to question the course of the investigation.

Schiff critiqued Durham’s decision to issue a statement about an inspector general’s report on the same topic and repeatedly asked why one of the top prosecutors on the investigation resigned, a question Durham refused to answer.

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) said Durham’s investigative trip to Italy was just “looking for authentic pasta” as he griped that the special counsel’s work was insufficient.

“It seems like more than disappointment. It seems like you weren't really trying to expose the true core of the corruption,” Gaetz said. 

“It's not what's in your report that is telling, it's the omission, it's the lack of work you did. ... You let the country down.”

Hunter Biden to plead guilty in deal with feds

Editor's note: This file has been updated to clarify Hunter Biden will enter a pretrial diversion program as part of a deal with federal prosecutors who are expected to drop a gun charge against him.

Hunter Biden, President Biden's son, will plead guilty to tax crimes in a plea deal with prosecutors, and he reached a diversion agreement relating to unlawful possession of a weapon, according to court papers filed Tuesday.

The plea deal, which must be accepted by a judge, likely would keep Hunter Biden out of jail.

Biden, 53, has been under investigation for tax matters since 2018. He reportedly paid off his tax liability in 2020, with court documents detailing he initially failed to make tax payments of more than $100,000 in both 2017 and 2018 on income exceeding $1.5 million.

Biden was charged with two counts of willful failure to pay income tax. The third charge stems from possession of a firearm in 2018, a weapon he was in possession of while using crack cocaine. Biden denied drug use when applying to secure the gun.


More Hunter Biden coverage from The Hill


In a separate agreement on the gun charge, the president's son will be entered into a pretrial diversion program, meaning those charges are likely to be removed from his record if he complies with the terms of the program. 

“With the announcement of two agreements between my client, Hunter Biden, and the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Delaware, it is my understanding that the five-year investigation into Hunter is resolved,” Biden attorney Christopher Clark said in a statement.

“Hunter will take responsibility for two instances of misdemeanor failure to file tax payments when due pursuant to a plea agreement.  A firearm charge, which will be subject to a pretrial diversion agreement and will not be the subject of the plea agreement, will also be filed by the Government,” he added. 

A statement from David Weiss, the U.S. Attorney for Delaware, counters Clark’s claim the issue is resolved.

“The investigation is ongoing,” Weiss’s office said in a release.

According to The Washington Post, Biden is expected to agree to two years of probation in connection with the plea deal.

“I know Hunter believes it is important to take responsibility for these mistakes he made during a period of turmoil and addiction in his life.  He looks forward to continuing his recovery and moving forward,” Clark said.

Sign up for the latest from The Hill here

President Biden has repeatedly defended his son from allegations of wrongdoing. The White House on Tuesday stressed support for Hunter Biden following the announcement of the plea deal.

“The President and First Lady love their son and support him as he continues to rebuild his life. We will have no further comment," spokesperson Ian Sams said in a statement.

In an interview last October, the president said his son acknowledged in a book that he noted he was not using drugs on a gun application at a time when he was battling addiction.

The White House has sought to keep its distance from Hunter Biden’s ongoing legal case to avoid any implication the president was pressuring the Justice Department, and officials have repeatedly referred questions about the case to Hunter Biden’s lawyer. Upon taking office, the Biden administration allowed U.S. Attorney David Weiss, a holdover from the Trump administration, to continue to oversee the case.

FILE - President Joe Biden attends his granddaughter Maisy Biden's commencement ceremony with first lady Jill Biden and children Hunter Biden and Ashley Biden at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Monday, May 15, 2023. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky, File)

President Joe Biden attends his granddaughter Maisy Biden's commencement ceremony with first lady Jill Biden and children Hunter Biden and Ashley Biden at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Monday, May 15, 2023. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky, File)

The plea deal is likely to fuel Republican efforts to keep the business dealings of the president’s family in the spotlight.

Hunter Biden’s involvement in foreign business dealings has been a source of focus for Republicans for years. Former President Trump’s suggestion in 2019 that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky investigate Hunter and Joe Biden, then his political opponent, led to his first impeachment.

Reports that broke just before the 2020 election detailing the contents of a hard drive Hunter Biden purportedly owned, which included more details about the business dealings in addition to more salacious content, further fueled GOP interest in his business dealings and attempts to connect the now-president to them.

House Republicans have launched an investigation into the foreign business dealings of Hunter Biden, other family members of President Biden and their associates, raising alarm about foreign funds that flowed to the first family.

Republicans have not produced evidence, though, that directly links President Biden to any of Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings. The president has denied knowledge of those business dealings.

In the past few weeks, House Republicans have highlighted an unverified tip to the FBI that then-Vice President Biden accepted a bribe from a foreign national, but they have not substantiated those claims.

In a statement, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) — who is heading up the Biden family business dealings probe — said the charges “reveal a two-tiered system of justice.”

“Hunter Biden is getting away with a slap on the wrist when growing evidence uncovered by the House Oversight Committee reveals the Bidens engaged in a pattern of corruption, influence peddling, and possibly bribery,” Comer said. “We will not rest until the full extent of President Biden’s involvement in the family’s schemes are revealed.”

Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.)

Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) questions Dr. Rochelle Walensky, Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, during a House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic oversight hearing of the CDC over their handling of the COVID-19 pandemic on Tuesday, June 13, 2023.

Comer’s bribery allegations stem from a tip to the FBI the agency was unable to corroborate.

“This development reflects the Justice Department’s continued institutional independence in following the evidence of actual crimes and enforcing the rule of law even in the face of constant criticism and heckling by my GOP colleagues who think that the system of justice should only follow their partisan wishes,” Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), Comer’s Democratic counterpart on the committee, said in a statement. 

“Oversight Committee Republicans have advanced debunked conspiracy theories about President Biden and are now, again, wailing about the work of a Trump appointed U.S. Attorney.”

Hunter Biden’s previous drug addiction also became a GOP attack line.

In 2020, former President Trump pounced on the issue, at one point during a presidential debate mentioning that Joe Biden's son was discharged from the military for cocaine use.

Then-candidate Biden defended his son.

“My son, like a lot of people ... had a drug problem,” he said. “He’s overtaken it. He’s fixed it. He’s worked on it. And I’m proud of him. I'm proud of my son.”

FILE - Former President Donald Trump speaks at Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, N.J., Tuesday, June 13, 2023, after pleading not guilty in a Miami courtroom earlier in the day to dozens of felony counts that he hoarded classified documents and refused government demands to give them back. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, File)

Former President Donald Trump speaks at Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, N.J., Tuesday, June 13, 2023, after pleading not guilty in a Miami courtroom earlier in the day to dozens of felony counts that he hoarded classified documents and refused government demands to give them back. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, File)

Trump weighed in on Hunter Biden’s case after news of the plea agreement broke, criticizing the charges as being low-level.

“Wow! The corrupt Biden DOJ just cleared up hundreds of years of criminal liability by giving Hunter Biden a mere ‘traffic ticket.’ Our system is BROKEN!” the former president wrote on Truth Social.

Trump was arraigned last week on 37 counts following a Department of Justice indictment alleging he violated the Espionage Act and obstructed justice in taking classified records from his presidency and refusing to return them. He is also facing charges for concealing documents and misleading investigators.

Updated at 12:40 p.m.

Alex Gangitano contributed.

House GOP inches closer to Mayorkas impeachment amid discord in conference

House Republicans inched closer this week toward impeaching Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, officially launching an investigation that would serve as the basis for any inquiry.

But conservative supporters of the effort still face enormous hurdles, including a reluctance of leadership to take such a drastic step and the continued opposition from more moderate lawmakers in the GOP conference — barriers that even the loudest Mayorkas critics have been forced to acknowledge. 

On Wednesday, Republicans on the House Homeland Security Committee said they would review Mayorkas’s performance through a five-phase plan, which Chairman Mark Green (R-Tenn.) said could be completed in a matter of 11 or 12 weeks.

“His policies have resulted in a humanitarian crisis this country has never seen,” Green said at a press conference.  

“Today's hearing will begin the process of digging into all of the details. The cause and effect of Alejandro Mayorkas’s dereliction of duty. I hope the American people will listen intently. I hope the press will report this, honestly. I hope the president of the United States, the commander in chief charged with the security and protection of this country, will listen. He can't possibly know of all of these failures of Mayorkas and have not fired him already.”

It’s a process that faces a complex path in the House — and one that’s already highlighted several layers of division within the GOP conference. Not only is there discord between impeachment supporters and opponents, but there’s also growing tension among Mayorkas’s most vocal critics, all of whom seem to want to play a prominent role in the effort to oust him. 

“We don't have the votes,” Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) said Tuesday. Asked what would change the minds of the Republican opponents, he offered a biting criticism of his centrist colleagues.  

“An embrace of logic and reason,” he said.  

Green’s presser was followed by a hearing titled “Open Borders, Closed Case: Secretary Mayorkas’ Dereliction of Duty on the Border Crisis.”

Democrats argued the hearing’s name alone shows Republicans have already reached a conclusion on whether to take the dramatic step of impeaching a cabinet secretary — an action not seen since the 1870s.

“You may have a difference of opinion as to how the United States should process our asylum applicants. But the notion that that difference of a policy opinion would be the basis for a quote unquote, ‘case closed’ that Secretary Mayorkas is violating his duty, is preposterous and it is not any basis for impeachment,” said Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.), who before entering Congress worked as lead counsel for the first impeachment inquiry against former President Trump.

The move, six months into GOP leadership of the House, follows wrangling within the conference over how speedily to pursue the topic.

While a slew of lawmakers introduced impeachment resolutions days after the contentious vote to give the gavel to House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), the most recent effort was offered by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), a sign of discontent among those eager to speed ahead.

It also comes as border numbers have dropped in the weeks following the May lifting of a policy that allowed the U.S. to quickly deny entry to would-be asylum seekers, bucking widespread predictions of a surge of migrants. The repeal of that policy, however, was paired with the reintroduction of consequences for those caught wrongly crossing the border.

“The number of Border Patrol encounters have plummeted by 70 percent since the Biden administration ended Title 42 last month. The number of overall border encounters have dropped by 50 percent in that time, due in large part to [Homeland Security's] hard work under Secretary Mayorkas’s leadership,” ranking member Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) said during the hearing.

“Calling a hearing and saying ‘case closed’ before you’ve heard any testimony is not legitimate oversight. ... It’s about House Republican leadership catering to its most extreme MAGA members, who want to impeach someone — anyone at all. It’s about trying to make good on GOP backroom deals to elect a Speaker, raise the debt ceiling and stave off a mutiny in the Republican ranks.”

The House Homeland Security Committee doesn’t have the power to ignite an impeachment inquiry. That task falls to the House Judiciary Committee.

Green has cast the investigation as an effort that will be handed off to the other panel and ultimately brought to fruition by Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio). 

The firebrand Georgia congresswoman, however, offered her impeachment resolution with a tweet that included an emoji of a slice of cake, a reference to earlier comments that the debt ceiling package would be more appealing if it included “dessert” like an impeachment of Mayorkas or FBI Director Christopher Wray. 

The move was a reflection of impatience from some in the GOP, even as McCarthy has largely stuck to comments he made while visiting the border late last year stressing the need to investigate. 

“I know people are very frustrated with [Mayorkas],” McCarthy told CNN last month, but added that any impeachment process shouldn’t be pursued “for political reasons.”

Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), former head of the far-right Freedom Caucus, suggested the Speaker is moving closer toward backing the impeachment effort. 

"McCarthy has loosened up on that. Whereas quite some time ago he was a no, now he’s kinda saying — kinda saying — yes,” Biggs said. Other reluctant Republicans are also shifting, he said. 

“There are people who were an absolute ‘no’ on it even a few weeks ago, and now told me that they're moveable,” he said. “There's probably two or three people that I'm trying to work on, see if I can move them my way. And if those two or three come along, I think then we're ready to go.”

Green sidestepped questions over whether the caucus would be able to secure the votes to impeach Mayorkas. 

“I would say it’s intuitively obvious to the casual observer, that Republicans are individualists and we think independently, we’re not robots being told by a Speaker how to vote,” he said in a nod to the standstill on the House floor led by a group of far-right members who stalled a vote on a GOP bill on gas stoves as a way to voice frustration with McCarthy's handling of the debt ceiling. 

“And so, there are many people with differences of opinions about this. And, you know, I'm in a leadership position, and from my leadership position, the direction of our committee is to get to the facts.”

The Department of Homeland Security has pushed back on GOP arguments and has largely blamed Congress for issues at the border.

“The immigration system has been terribly broken and outdated for decades. That is something about which everyone agrees, and it is my hope that they take that problem, and they fix it once and for all. In the meantime, within a broken system, we are doing everything that we can to increase its efficiency, to provide humanitarian relief when the law permits and to also deliver an enforcement consequence when the law dictates,” Mayorkas said earlier this year during an appearance on MSNBC.

“That is exactly what we are doing, and as far as I am concerned, I will continue to do that with tremendous pride with the people with whom I work."  

Green said his five-point plan includes investigations into cartels as well as the financial cost associated with migration.

“The guy has got to go,” Green said.

“We're going to hold him accountable. And if the president picks another guy that does this kind of stuff, we'll do what we have to do there too.”

Greene silencing leads to new pledges of civility

The silencing of Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) after she called Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas a liar in a hearing has led to a pledge for a more civil House Homeland Security Committee going forward — a standard lawmakers may struggle to meet as they gear up for the secretary’s impeachment. 

When Mayorkas appeared before Congress this week, Chair Mark Green (R-Tenn.) accused him of intentional disruption at the border and said his answers to prior questions show “incompetence.” Rep. Clay Higgins told Mayorkas it was “shameful what you brought upon our country.” Rep. Eli Crane (R-Ariz.) accused him of being smug. 

Numerous lawmakers accused him of lying before Congress — an argument both Mayorkas and Democrats refute.

But while others accused Mayorkas of being dishonest, Greene on Wednesday explicitly labeled him a liar, something Green determined violated House rules on impugning someone’s character. 

A hearing that began with a fiery opening statement from Green ended with a call to “dial the rhetoric down in the country and apparently in the committee.” 

“We don’t have to despise someone because they disagree with us. We don’t have to disparage someone because they disagree with us,” he said in closing the hearing.

It was a commitment he made after a sidebar with ranking member Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), who repeatedly described the panel's discourse that day as unbecoming for a committee with such a serious jurisdiction.  

Whether that moment can be met already appears in doubt for a committee that contains many members eager to impeach Mayorkas — a process that involves holding him personally responsible for the Biden administration’s approach to the border. 

Green was chastised early in the meeting by Democrats, who pointed to a story in The New York Times reporting he told donors to “get the popcorn” ready ahead of Wednesday’s hearing.

And Republicans on the panel have offered mixed assessments of whether they believe the tone of the hearing was inappropriate. 

Greene called the decision to silence her for the rest of the hearing unfair, noting that numerous Republican speakers before her accused Mayorkas of lying to Congress, even if they did not label him as a liar directly. 

“These are all impugning his character also, which is what they claimed were the rules. I think silencing me was extremely unfair. And I think it showed weakness from Republicans on the committee,” she said.

Rep. Dan Bishop (R-N.C.) said calling someone a liar is “poor form,” but that doing so is justified in regards to Mayorkas.

“They have been provoked to engage with Secretary Mayorkas in very severe terms,” he said of some of his colleagues. “And there's a reason for it.”

Rep. Josh Brecheen (R-Okla.), however, suggested the committee members take a softer approach in their language if not in their stance, pointing to specific passages from the Bible that guide him. 

“We can be unwavering without compromise, and also be gentle and reasonable. And so it hangs on my wall. It's hidden in my heart. And that's who I want to be as a legislator,” he said, pointing to James 3:17.

“I can disagree with someone and disagree with them heartily. And that's what makes our nation great is we have raucous debates, right? But I also want people to know that I love them and that the way I behold them in my subconscious is not through hatred, it is through love towards them as an individual who's made in the image of God.”

Mayorkas is no stranger to heated rhetoric. At one point last year during an appearance before the House Judiciary Committee, one lawmaker compared him to Benedict Arnold, suggesting he was a traitor to the country. And numerous senators this week likewise attacked his character, with Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) asking whether he had “an ounce of human compassion” about the situation at the border. 

At an event Friday, Mayorkas lamented the approach of lawmakers who criticize his character. 

“They are not easy to listen to,” he said of the insults. “They also have ramifications that I wish individuals in positions of leadership would consider.”

“I am fundamentally — fundamentally though — I’m impervious to them. Because I may make some mistakes. My decisions may be mistaken. Some may disagree with them, but I have 100 percent confidence in the integrity of my decision,” Mayorkas said in response to a question from The Hill during an event at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Several Democrats, meanwhile, have sought to dismiss the budding impeachment argument from the GOP.

“They can disagree with him on policy, but that is not a high crime and misdemeanor, nor does it in any way violate the Constitution and has no grounds for impeachment,” Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-N.Y.) said.

Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) said while many colleagues offered similar remarks to Greene, her comments have received the most attention, undercutting the effort to focus on Mayorkas.

“I think most of the Republicans are saying the same thing. I think most Republicans were calling [the] secretary names, belittling him and not allowing him to speak, insinuating that he was lying — all things which are false,” Garcia told The Hill.

“Republicans are focused — and they were clear — even in the chairman's comments at the fundraiser that he had, that he expected today to be a circus, he expected today to be kind of a made-for-TV event, which is how they planned it. And I think it backfired on them,” he said Wednesday. 

Green has said he was misquoted in the Times article, though he did not specify how, and noted the impeachment process will ultimately fall to the House Judiciary Committee. 

The nearly 20-minute delay in challenging Greene’s comments was a source of embarrassment for some on the committee. Thompson warned the division on display is poor signaling to adversaries who keep tabs on internal dynamics in the U.S. 

“Our charge as a committee is to keep the homeland safe from foreign as well as domestic terrorists,” he said.

“And if they see a committee tasked with that responsibility acting like we did today, you're saying, ‘Well, look, we don't have to worry anymore since it’s going off the rails.’”

Green told The Hill that going forward committee members need to “just attack the problem. You don’t attack the person.”

But he sees the issue as one on both sides of the aisle, adding that “There better not be any of either side breaking the rules of decorum,” in a nod to a sign brought by Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) criticizing Greene’s effort to defund the FBI. 

Greene made a similar argument, saying Thompson chaired a committee that impugned her character.

“Bennie Thompson has used his position, especially his chairmanship on the Jan. 6 committee, to literally call Republicans names every single day impugning our character, me specifically,” she said, adding that Democrats have called her an insurrectionist.

Rep. Glenn Ivey (D-Md.) said he appreciated the efforts at the end of the hearing to “rein it back in,” but said whether Green can ultimately do so remains to be seen.

“It varies from different Republican members. I think for some of them, this is the raison d'etre. They're going for more quotes, more tweets, more sales, more dollars raised on the internet. They're not going to change,” he said.

“The chairman and some of the other members, I hope that they will step back from that precipice and we can actually get back to doing some reasonable work.”

Marshall introduces vote of no confidence resolution for Mayorkas

Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) on Thursday introduced a vote of no confidence resolution for Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, the first effort in the Senate to mirror impeachment efforts percolating in the House.

The resolution comes after Marshall said during an exchange with Mayorkas in a Senate appearance on Tuesday that the secretary was derelict in his duties and, “I would be derelict to not do something about this.”

The nine-page resolution lays out a series of complaints about the state of the border, blaming Mayorkas for everything from increased migration, including attempts to clear a camp of some 15,000 Haitians near the Texas border, to drug flows and overdoses.

"There isn't one American who believes our southern border is secure,” Marshall said in a release. 

“In the real world, if you fail at your job, you get fired — the federal government should be no different.”

The resolution would have little effect if passed — an uphill battle in the Democrat-led Senate, and it would not have any bearing on impeachment efforts in the House, which have still not formally taken shape. 

The resolution also points to an argument building in the House that Mayorkas was dishonest before Congress — a case built on the secretary asserting in prior appearances that he has maintained control of the border.

The GOP argues that Mayorkas is failing to meet the definition of operational control laid out under the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which says the standard has only been met if the country prohibits “all unlawful entries” of both migrants and drugs.

Mayorkas recently told lawmakers that the standard of perfection laid out under the law has never been met, but it encourages the secretary to use all resources at their disposal to improve security.

“The Secure Fence Act provides that operational control means that not a single individual crosses the border illegally. And it’s for that reason that prior secretaries and myself have said that under that definition, no administration has had operational control,” Mayorkas said.

“As I have testified under oath multiple times, we use a lens of reasonableness in defining operational control. Are we maximizing the resources that we have to deliver the most effective results? And under that definition, we are doing so very much to gain operational control.”

With escalating impeachment discussions, the Department of Homeland Security has also called on Congress to do more to address problems with the U.S. immigration system that exacerbate efforts to enter and remain in the country illegally.

“Instead of pointing fingers and pursuing baseless attacks, Congress should work with the Department and pass legislation to fix our broken immigration system, which has not been updated in over 40 years,” the agency said in a statement.

While numerous House lawmakers have expressed an interest in impeaching Mayorkas, the process has not yet begun. If successful, an impeachment resolution would be forwarded to the Democrat-led Senate.

Greene vs Green: silencing sparks round of GOP infighting

Comments from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) this week again presented a challenge to GOP leadership after she was silenced Wednesday following an exchange with Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas whom she accused of being a liar.

Greene’s comments pushed Democrats on the House Homeland Security Committee to move to take down her words, a ruling that blocks a lawmaker from being recognized to speak during a hearing. 

Chair Mark Green (R-Tenn.) agreed the speech violated House rules by attacking someone’s character, appearing not to immediately realize a move to “take down” her comments versus striking them from the record would terminate her right to speak again. 

Greene on Thursday called the decision unfair, particularly because a series of Republican lawmakers had spent their time accusing Mayorkas of being dishonest before Congress. It’s a claim Democrats have dismissed as a weak argument the GOP is exploring ahead of a possible impeachment of the secretary.

“I think it's not fair. Especially our Chair, Mark Green, and others, were also accusing Secretary Mayorkas of lying, calling him a liar. Congressman Green also called him incompetent. These are all impugning his character also, which is what they claimed were the rules,” she said in response to a question from The Hill. 

“I think silencing me was extremely unfair. And I think it showed weakness from Republicans on the committee.”

Two separate comments from Greene on Wednesday brought proceedings to a roughly 20-minute halt. 

She first accused Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) of cheating on his wife with a Chinese spy — a charge the California lawmaker vehemently denied and a comment Democrats also challenged, which Republicans on the panel shot down in a party-line vote.

Minutes later, she called Mayorkas a liar while accusing the secretary of failing to work to stem the flow of fentanyl into the U.S.

“You’re a liar. You are letting this go on, and the numbers prove it,” she said.

Green, speaking with The Hill on Wednesday after the hearing, said while other members made similar comments about Mayorkas, they were more carefully tailored.

“Well, you just attack the problem. You don't attack the person. Note that I said Mayorkas lied to Congress. I didn't say Mayorkas was a liar. No one objected to me saying, ‘You gave false testimony.’ Or, ‘You lied,’ but they would object if I said, ‘You're a liar.’ Because that's attacking the person as opposed to what he did or said. So that's the subtle difference,” he said.

The chair ended Wednesday’s hearing with a call for greater civility, saying, “We do need to dial the rhetoric down in the country and apparently in the committee.”

On Thursday morning, the Georgia lawmaker said she planned to speak to Green on the floor — a conversation she later said changed little.

“He basically said that we have two different styles. And so we have a disagreement still about what took place yesterday. But you know, I'm still new to committees,” Greene said, nodding to her last session in Congress where she was removed from her posts. 

“So I'll make sure that I'm making sure I'm following the rules, which I do believe is important, but at the same time, I'm still going to keep pushing.”

According to reporting from CNN, sources close to Green said he privately reprimanded Greene and would contemplate asking Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) to remove her from the panel if something similar happened again.

But Greene dismissed that possibility, noting that she had spoken with McCarthy. 

“Speaker McCarthy's never going to let that happen,” she said, adding that “he agreed with me.” 

Reached for comment Thursday, a spokeswoman for the committee said, “Chairman Green looks forward to Congresswoman Greene’s full participation in the plethora of upcoming committee activities to get answers for the American people on the Mayorkas border crisis.”

McCarthy’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Democrats on Thursday cast the episode as another example of Republicans elevating the Trump-aligned MAGA (Make America Great Again) wing of the party.

"The extreme MAGA Republicans are showing the American people who they are. They're not even trying to hide their extremism. And Exhibit A is Marjorie Taylor Greene. She is totally out of control. But they don't care. The leadership apparently supports Marjorie Taylor Greene,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said at a press conference.

“The rank-and-file Republicans apparently support Marjorie Taylor Greene. She's allowed to lie. She's allowed to debase the institution.”

Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.), who served as a staffer to Democrats during former President Trump’s first impeachment, said Republicans have done little to demonstrate that Mayorkas lied under oath — the underlying charge of their questions.

GOP lawmakers have for months asked Mayorkas whether he has operational control of the border, looking for any inconsistencies in his statements. They point to a 2006 law that defines operational control as the prevention of all unlawful entries, a standard of perfection that has never been met.

“They seem to be trying to create some sort of record of him making false statements under oath, but their own statements undermine those accusations, and there's no basis for them to proceed with impeachment,” he told The Hill Wednesday.

“I frankly was very disappointed with the tenor of the entire hearing. And the ad hominem insults and attacks on the secretary is just a shameful demonstration of a lack of respect for a cabinet official.”

Heated GOP grilling of Mayorkas leads to pledge to ‘dial the rhetoric down’

Republicans gave a preview Wednesday of a still materializing impeachment case against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, zeroing in on a 2006 law that requires a standard of perfection at the border.

But what started as a fiery hearing filled with attacks on Mayorkas ended with promises to tone down the rhetoric and move towards civility in the House Homeland Security Committee — a panel with numerous members who have pledged to remove the secretary from office.

The GOP on Wednesday repeatedly referenced the Secure Fence Act of 2006, a law that defines operational control as achieved when there is not a single unlawful entry of either migrants or drugs at the border. 

Chair Mark Green (R-Tenn.) and other Republicans played numerous clips of Mayorkas previously answering questions about whether he has maintained operational control of the border — a tactic that comes after Green reportedly told donors at a fundraiser to “get the popcorn” ready ahead of the hearing.

Green rattled off a series of policies rolled out under the Biden administration, including the rescission of some Trump-era policies, though the current administration has alienated immigration advocates by retaining others. 

“You have not secured our borders, Mr. Secretary, and I believe you've done so intentionally. There is no other explanation for the systematic dismantling and transformation of our border,” he said. 

Several Republicans on the committee, including Green, leveled a series of accusations against Mayorkas, using their full five minutes for speeches, without asking questions of Mayorkas or allowing him to respond.

“I have no interest in asking the secretary any questions because he obfuscates and lies,” said  Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.) after arguing Mayorkas had “failed your country.”

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), the top Democrat on the committee, defended Mayorkas, pointing to reporting from The New York Times about Green’s comments to donors.

“I was dismayed to see that speaking to a group of campaign contributors last week about today's hearing the Chairman said, and I quote, ‘Get the popcorn. It's going to be fun.’ I think that tells Americans all they need to know about the Republican agenda here,” Thompson said.

“They don't want solutions to homeland security challenges. They want to make a headline or photo opp. They want a political wedge issue and something to talk to their deep-pocketed donors about more than they want to work together to get things done.”

Green later said the article misquoted him. He did not specify how but detailed he has no power to impeach Mayorkas, noting such a move would fall to the House Judiciary Committee and that his role is limited to oversight.

Republicans used much of the hearing to dissect Mayorkas’s previous statements on operational control of the border.

Mayorkas has repeatedly maintained he has control of the border, but the GOP has seized on prior comments from Border Patrol Chief Raúl Ortiz who answered “no” when asked if the department was meeting the high standard set under the Secure Fence Act.

It was a line Green said “told the truth” about the situation at the border.

Mayorkas on Wednesday said he was previously cut off by lawmakers from giving nuance to earlier answers, arguing the law leaves much discretion to the secretary in determining how to manage the border while the standard itself has never been met.

“The Secure Fence Act provides that operational control means that not a single individual crosses the border illegally. And it's for that reason that prior secretaries and myself have said that under that definition, no administration has had operational control,” Mayorkas said.

“As I have testified under oath multiple times, we use a lens of reasonableness in defining operational control. Are we maximizing the resources that we have to deliver the most effective results? And under that definition, we are doing so very much to gain operational control.”

Democrats took turns defending Mayorkas.

Rep. Donald Payne (D-N.J.) accused Republicans of having “such short memories … with respect to the situation at the Southern border.” Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) rattled off a list of Trump-era policies, including family separation, prompting Mayorkas to say they not only failed to achieve operational control but “disobeyed our values as a country.”

Thompson turned to the archives, citing comments from GOP lawmakers from when the Secure Fence Act was first passed, citing concerns over the standard it set, including Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), a member of the committee who worked on the legislation.

“When you put this number as a metric in the definition of operational control, you make it impossible to achieve operational control. Perfection shouldn't be the enemy of the good,” McCaul said at the time, according to a portion of the transcript read aloud by Thompson.

Republicans, however, took issue with Mayorakas’s explanation, arguing the secretary has no right to interpret the laws passed by Congress.

“Congress set an objective in law. You haven't pursued it,” said Rep. Dan Bishop (R-N.C.).  “Who are you to displace the legal definition of operational control by this Congress in favor of pursuing one of your own invention?”

Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-N.Y.), who played a central role in the impeachment of then-President Trump, later pounced on Bishop’s phrasing.

“I have a little experience with impeachment and I can tell you, as well as everybody else, that there is no grounds for impeachment based on a policy dispute. And there is absolutely nothing that I've seen here today that amounts to a false statement under oath,” he said.

“In fact, Mr. Bishop, my colleague, in referencing operational control and that standard, stated himself that it is an objective. It is the objective of the Department of Homeland Security to have operational control and, as you pointed out, that is to allow no unlawful entry into this country. That, of course, is an impossible standard.”

Other Republicans sought to hold Mayorkas accountable with other methods.

One lawmaker brought a series of charts with multiple questions. Two others brought guests to the hearing, including parents of children that had died of a fentanyl overdose and the family of victims who died after a man carrying migrants crashed into their car while seeking to evade police in a high-speed chase. 

The committee’s proceedings came to an almost 20-minute standstill following comments from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) accusing Mayorkas of lying.

Green agreed to a motion from Democrats to take down her words, ultimately resulting in the loss of her speaking privileges during the hearing.

It was a complex turn of events given that many Republicans at prior points in the hearing accused Mayorkas of being dishonest before Congress, though none, as Greene did, labeled him a liar.

Still, the hearing ended on a tone much different from how it started, with Thompson and Green both speaking to the need to maintain decorum during proceedings.

Thompson said the two men had "sidebarred" about the language used, noting other nations keep tabs on Congressional proceedings — “our adversaries look at us,” he warned.

“You and I pledge that going forward, we'll make every effort to get back to the civility that this committee has been known for,” Thompson said.

Green echoed that in his own closing remarks.

“I agree with the former chairman, now ranking member, that we disagree on a lot of policies. We really do. And we don't have to despise someone because they disagree with us. We don't have to disparage someone because they disagree with us,” Green said. 

“And we do need to dial the rhetoric down in the country and apparently in the committee.”