Texas has set the impeachment vote on Paxton for Saturday. They’re moving fast and getting this messy business done on a weekend where it will get reduced coverage.
If the House votes to impeach, Paxton will be removed from his position immediately until the results of his trial in the Senate. His wife is one of the states senators who will be voting on his impeachment. Considering the nature of the charges against him, her vote may be up for grabs.
On Thursday evening, a special investigative committee of the Texas Legislature officially filed charges of impeachment against state Attorney General Ken Paxton. As The Texas Tribune reports, the document includes “20 articles listing a yearslong pattern of alleged misconduct and lawbreaking.”
The chair of that committee has already announced that he will call for Paxton’s impeachment. On Wednesday, members of that committee voted unanimously that the attorney general should be impeached. If it happens, it will be a first: No attorney general has been impeached in the history of the state.
Paxton has issued a response calling the legislators members of the “corrupt political establishment,” and posted a statement on Twitter in which he called on the speaker of the Republican-led House to resign for, among other things, allowing “Chinese spies” to control Texas land. He’s also declared that Texas Republicans are tools of President Joe Biden and the Washington elite, all of which should make the upcoming hearings even more enjoyable.
Before you reach for the popcorn, here’s a reminder of some of the “accomplishments” that have marked Paxton’s career.
On Jan. 6, 2021, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton stood in front of the Trump supporters gathered at the “Stop the Steal” rally in Washington and delivered a speech that made clear allusions to the Civil War. “One of the great things about the state of Texas is, we did not quit,” said Paxton. “If you look at Georgia, they capitulated, they consented. We kept fighting in Texas.” That’s not exactly a record to be brought up with pride, but then there’s little to be proud about anywhere in Paxton’s record.
Just hours after he urged Trump supporters to, like Texas, “keep fighting” and watched them march toward the Capitol, Paxton swore that it was not Trump supporters who smashed their way into the building. “These are not Trump supporters,” Paxton wrote on Twitter. Instead he blamed the insurgency on the forces of antifa. When Paxton was asked about his sources, he said he was only reporting what he heard from a “journalist,” by which he meant the fascism-friendly conspiracy site WorldNetDaily.
Paxton topped off his Jan. 6 escapades by refusing to turn over records related to his own appearance at the rally. As with so many things related to Paxton, that battle went to court, where he did what he is so good at doing: make irrational arguments and lose. But those Jan. 6 events were just one small item on the checklist of all things Paxton.
The Texas constitution states that if Paxton is impeached in the House, he will immediately be removed from office until his trial in the Senate. Should he survive that trial, Paxton could go back to misusing his office, as he has always done.
Why is Paxton up for impeachment? Take your pick.
The FBI investigation into how Paxton used his office to illegally help a donor.
The indictment for fraud that Paxton’s Republican supporters have stalled for years, in part by blocking attorneys prosecuting the case from getting paid. As the AP pointed out, it’s not many people who can avoid going to trial on felony charges for seven straight years—and they made that point last year.
The $3.3 million that Paxton had to pay out to settle a whistleblower case after a group of his own deputies raised warnings about his actions, including “abuse of office and other crimes.”
An affair with a woman he later promoted to a high-paying job in a case so tangled it’s hard to tell if it’s bribery or extortion.
Multiple reports of bribery still under investigation that have not yet been detailed.
There’s also a state bar association investigation into lies Paxton told in court in an effort to overturn the 2020 election, but it’s unlikely the Republican-led legislature was upset by that point.
Both the legislature and the voters of Texas have supported Paxton over the years as he carried on a crusade of lies and distortions, becoming the poster boy for how a state attorney general’s office could be used to prosecute a political agenda. It's impossible to briefly list all the efforts Paxton has made to sue federal agencies, from the EPA and Homeland Security to Health and Human Services. However, among the “highlights,” Paxton has:
Repeatedly had a go at overturning aspects of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.
Tried to enact a complex system for collecting child support payments, including another failed attempt to sue the federal government that ended up going hundreds of millions over budget and left children without support payments for months.
Led the charge to try and keep COVID-19 restrictions on immigration even though he also led the charge to sue the federal government over COVID-19 restrictions.
Sued hospitals for treatment of trans youth well before other Republicans got on board with the persecution.
Sued four other states for failing to run their elections according to Paxton’s view of the law, an effort that garnered a scathing reply from the attorneys general of those states, as well as a blunt rejection by the Supreme Court, saying that Paxton had “not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections.”
Hard to believe he lost, considering that Paxton’s lawsuit included “evidence” from the debunked film “2,000 Mules.”
Somehow, through all this, Texas voters still put Paxton in office by a wide margin. That includes returning him to office in 2020 despite three felony indictments and a public investigation by the FBI. Paxton has the biggest selling point of any Republican candidate: He knows how to hate the right people. So don’t be surprised if being impeached is not his last act.
How can Democrats win the messaging war? It turns out there's actually a science to it, as strategic communications consultant Anat Shenker-Osorio tells us on this week's episode of "The Downballot." Shenker-Osorio explains how her research shows the importance of treating voters as protagonists; how Democrats can avoid ceding "freedom" to Republicans by emphasizing "freedoms," plural; and why it actually makes sense to call out "MAGA Republicans" (even though, yes, it's all Republicans).
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton teetered on the brink of impeachment Thursday after years of scandal, criminal charges and corruption accusations that the state's Republican majority had largely met with silence for years until now.
In an unanimous decision, a Republican-led investigative committee that spent months quietly looking into Paxton recommended impeaching the state's top lawyer. The state House of Representatives could vote on the recommendation as soon as Friday. If the House impeaches Paxton, he would be forced to leave office immediately.
The move sets set up a remarkably sudden downfall for one of the GOP's most prominent legal combatants, who in 2020 asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn President Joe Biden's victory. Only two other officials in Texas’ nearly 200-year history have been impeached.
Paxton has been under FBI investigation for years over accusations that he used his office to help a donor and was separately indicted on securities fraud charges in 2015, but has yet to stand trial.
Unlike in Congress, impeachment in Texas requires immediate removal from office until a trial is held in the Senate. That means Paxton faces ouster at the hands of GOP lawmakers just seven months after easily winning a third term over challengers — among them George P. Bush — who had urged voters to reject a compromised incumbent but discovered that many didn't know about Paxton's litany of alleged misdeeds or dismissed the accusations as political attacks. Republican Gov. Greg Abbott could appoint an interim replacement.
Paxton has suggested that the investigation that came to light to week is a politically motivated attack and said the Republican House leadership is too “liberal” for the state.
Chris Hilton, a senior lawyer in the attorney general’s office, told reporters before Thursday's committee vote that what investigators said about Paxton was “false,” “misleading,” and “full of errors big and small.” He said all of the allegations were known to voters when they reelected him in November.
Impeachment requires a two-thirds vote of the state's 150-member House chamber, where Republicans hold a commanding 85-64 majority.
In one sense, Paxton's political peril arrived with dizzying speed: House Republicans did not reveal they had been investigating him until Tuesday, followed the next day by an extraordinary public airing of alleged criminal acts he committed as one of Texas' most powerful figures.
But to Paxton's detractors, who now include a widening share of his own party in the Texas Capitol, the rebuke was seen as years in the making.
In 2014, he admitted to violating Texas securities law over not registering as an investment advisor while soliciting clients. A year later, Paxton was indicted on felony securities charges by a grand jury in his hometown near Dallas, where he was accused of defrauding investors in a tech startup. He has pleaded not guilty to two felony counts that carry a potential sentence of five to 99 years in prison.
He opened a legal defense fund and accepted $100,000 from an executive whose company was under investigation by Paxton's office for Medicaid fraud. An additional $50,000 was donated by an Arizona retiree whose son Paxton later hired to a high-ranking job but was soon fired after trying to make a point by displaying child pornography in a meeting.
What has unleashed the most serious risk to Paxton is his relationship with another wealthy donor, Austin real estate developer Nate Paul.
Several of Paxton's top aides in 2020 said they became concerned the attorney general was misusing the powers of his office to help Paul over unproven claims that an elaborate conspiracy to steal $200 million of his properties was afoot. The FBI searched Paul's home in 2019 but he has not been charged and his attorneys have denied wrongdoing. Paxton also told staff members that he had an affair with a woman who, it later emerged, worked for Paul.
Paxton's aides accused him of corruption and were all fired or quit after reporting him to the FBI. Four sued under Texas' whistleblower laws, accusing Paxton of wrongful retaliation, and in February agreed to settle the case for $3.3 million. But the Texas House must approve the payout and Phelan has said he doesn't think taxpayers should foot the bill.
Shortly after the settlement was reached, the House investigation into Paxton began. The probe amounted to rare scrutiny of Paxton in the state Capitol, where many Republicans have long taken a muted posture about the accusations that have followed the attorney general.
That includes Abbott, who in January swore in Paxton for a third term and said the way he approached the job was “the right way to run the attorney's general's office.”
Only twice has the Texas House impeached a sitting official: Gov. James Ferguson in 1917 and state Judge O.P. Carrillo in 1975.
According to a new Rasmussen Reports poll, voters remain statistically tied in their support for or opposition to Congress impeaching President Joe Biden.
The poll of nearly 1,000 likely voters found that 42% surveyed said they favored Congress holding impeachment proceeding against Biden; 45% said the opposite. The poll has a 3% +/- margin of error.
RELATED: Joe Biden ‘Will Be Impeached’ Over Report Allegedly Linking Him to ‘Criminal Scheme,’ Says MTG
A strong majority of Republicans, 70%, said Congress should hold impeachment hearings; 71% of Democrats said Congress shouldn’t. Among independents, 39% said Congress should begin impeachment proceedings; 40% said they shouldn’t.
The poll asked three key questions. It first asked, “How likely is it that, since becoming president, Joe Biden has committed high crimes and misdemeanors that would justify Congress impeaching him?” It next asked, “Should Congress begin impeachment proceedings against President Biden?” Finally, it asked, “Regardless of whether or not you think President Biden should be impeached, how likely is it that Congress actually will pursue impeachment proceedings against President Biden?”
The majority of all polled, 53%, said it was “at least somewhat likely” that since taking office the president has committed “high crimes and misdemeanors that would justify Congress impeaching him.” Among them, 38% said it was “very likely” that he had committed “high crimes and misdemeanors;” 28% said it was “not at all likely.”
Over one-third of Democrats and 48% of independents said it was “at least somewhat likely.”
More men than women, 58% to 48%, said it was likely that the president has committed high crimes and misdemeanors; men were also more likely to support Congress holding impeachment proceedings.
RELATED: GOP Leader McCarthy Again Gets Squishy When Asked About Impeaching Biden
Despite this, 66% said it was “at least not very likely;” 29% said it was “not at all likely” that Congress would do anything.
The findings were published as a recent report found that “the FBI had no verifiable evidence that President Donald Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia to sway the outcome of the 2016 presidential election when it launched a federal investigation.”
The findings were also published after attorneys for an IRS whistleblower informed members of Congress “that their client, who claims to have information suggesting the Biden administration could be mishandling the investigation into President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, has been removed from the probe into the president’s son,” ABC News reported.
According to a recent Reuters-Ipsos survey conducted May 9-15, if a rematch were held today, Biden would receive 38% of the vote, Trump would receive 36%. According to a recent Harvard CAPS-Harris poll, Trump would defeat Biden by seven percentage points.
RELATED: Biden Administration’s New Mortgage Policy: Unjust and Dangerous
The Rasmussen Reports poll results were released on the same day U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Georgia, announced she planned to file articles of impeachment against Biden. Her main reason for doing so, she said, was because the president has “deliberately compromised our national security by refusing to enforce immigration laws and secure our border” by allowing “approximately six million illegals from over 170 countries to invade our country.”
White House spokesman Ian Sams said Greene’s announcement was a “shameless sideshow political stunt.”
The Rasmussen poll was conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC, which surveyed 996 likely registered voters nationwide by phone and online on May 11 and 14-15.
Syndicated with permission from The Center Square.
The post Poll: Voters Nearly Split on Wanting Congress to Impeach President Biden appeared first on The Political Insider.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) announced plans to file articles of impeachment against President Biden on Thursday, alleging he has violated his oath of office in not securing the country’s borders and protecting national security.
Greene said at a press conference this will be the “first set” of articles she introduces against Biden, whom she said has purposefully failed to fulfill his responsibilities of the presidency.
“It is with the highest amount of solemnity that I announce my intention to introduce articles of impeachment today on the head of this America-last executive branch, that has been working since Jan. 20, 2021, to systematically destroy this country, the president of the United States, Joseph Robinette Biden,” Greene said.
Greene made a similar announcement two days ago regarding her plans to introduce articles of impeachment against FBI Director Christopher Wray and Matthew Graves, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia.
Greene said she has also introduced articles of impeachment against Attorney General Merrick Garland and Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas.
The White House called Greene's plan a "stunt," noting Biden is focused on "preventing House Republicans’ default that would crash the economy."
“Is there a bigger example of a shameless sideshow political stunt than a trolling impeachment attack by one of the most extreme MAGA members in Congress over ‘national security’ while she actively demands to defund the FBI and even said she ‘would’ve been armed’ and ‘would have won’ the January 6 insurrection, if only she’d been in charge of it?" said Ian Sams, White House spokesman for oversight and investigations.
Greene initially introduced articles of impeachment against Biden on the first day of his presidency. She also filed articles against Garland in August following the search of former President Trump's Mar-a-Lago property for the classified and sensitive documents taken there. Neither advanced in the House.
The Georgia Republican and ally of House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said Biden has refused to enforced immigration laws and secure the border, "deliberately" compromising U.S. national security. She said he has allowed migrants to "invade" the country while depriving border control agents of the resources and policies they need to perform their duties.
Greene said Biden has allowed fentanyl to "flood" into the country and kill Americans every day.
She also slammed the administration over its plan to direct Customs and Border Protection to release migrants into the U.S. without a set court date or way to track them. Under the plan, migrants need to check in with an app until they are given a court date to appear.
Greene said it amounts to "catch-and-release," allowing the migrants to be released instead of being held in custody until their court date.
"His policies, directives and statements surrounding the southern border have violated our laws and destroyed our country," she said. "Biden has blatantly violated his constitutional duty, and he is a direct threat to our national security."
Article II of the Constitution states that the president and other U.S. officials can be removed from office through impeachment and conviction on "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
Greene said she wants to take time to gather cosponsors on her impeachment resolutions. She avoided directly answering a question on what exact charges she would file against Biden.
She said she discussed her plans to file the impeachment articles with other members of Republican leadership and said they did not ask her not to move forward.
She said she is introducing the articles because a majority the "base" of Republican voters and other Americans outside it agree with impeaching these officials, describing it as "the right thing to do."
"There's never any consequences for anyone in the federal government when regular American citizens face consequences all the time, and I'm introducing these articles because this is what people are demanding," Greene said.
Mayorkas has faced intense criticism from many Republicans over the situation at the southern border, which experienced a record number of migrant crossings in recent months. House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) called for Mayorkas's impeachment last week.
Greene alleges Wray and Garland have turned the FBI and Justice Department into Biden's "personal police force" to prosecute the administration's political opponents. She claimed that those who participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection were mostly peaceful, but Garland has still pursued them. A bipartisan Senate report found last year that seven people died related to the attack on the Capitol that day.
Greene said Wray prioritizes his own party above performing his job, wrongly identifying the Republican Wray as a Democrat. He has been director of the FBI since August 2017 and was nominated by former President Trump.
She said she is filing impeachment articles against Graves, the U.S. attorney, over his prosecutions of Jan. 6 defendants, which she said have continued while he has declined to prosecute 67 percent of people arrested by Washington, D.C., police last year.
"That affects people in our nation's capital, just regular innocent people that live and work here. I think as our conference learns more and more on this, they'll understand it," she said.
Greene said employees are fired from their jobs if they are corrupt or are not adequately serving their employers. She said all five officials are corrupt and unfit to hold office, so they must be impeached.
Updated at 12:04 p.m.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) said on Tuesday that she will move to introduce articles of impeachment against FBI Director Christopher Wray and Matthew Graves, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia.
Greene alleged in a release that Wray has turned the FBI into President Biden and Attorney General Merrick Garland's "personal police force." She said the FBI has "intimidated, harassed, and entrapped" U.S. citizens who have been "deemed enemies of the Biden regime."
She cited several examples of FBI actions in the past few years during Wray's tenure that she believes demonstrates overreach and improper conduct by the agency.
Greene referenced the plot that multiple men had in 2020 to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D), pointing to the couple who were acquitted after defense attorneys argued that the FBI entrapped them and convinced them to engage in the conspiracy.
Multiple other men, including the suspected ringleaders of the plot, were found guilty for their actions.
Greene also noted the search that the FBI conducted on former President Trump's Mar-a-Lago property for classified and sensitive documents that were taken there. She argued that Trump did not break any laws with his actions, but Biden did not have any authority to possess the documents that were found in multiple locations, including his personal home.
"It is unacceptable for the Director of the FBI or any civil officer to exercise his power in a way that targets one political class while doing favors for the other," Greene said.
Her articles of impeachment accuse Wray of refusing to ensure that the laws Congress passes, and the president signs, are "faithfully executed" and has failed to uphold his oath.
During a hearing of the House Oversight Committee on crime in Washington, D.C., earlier on Tuesday, Greene said Graves had chosen not to prosecute 67 percent of people arrested by D.C. police officers but continues to pursue cases and sentences against Jan. 6 defendants. She said the decision to not prosecute the former is “absolutely criminal.”
“The time for weaponizing the Department of Justice needs to come to an end. And because you refuse to prosecute real criminals that are violating all the crimes here in Washington, D.C., and you want to talk about D.C. residents — they are victims of your abuse of power,” she said. “And because of that, I am introducing articles of impeachment on you, Mr. Graves.”
Graves has defended his office’s conduct, telling The Washington Post that he is prosecuting most violent felonies. He said less serious cases were not being pursued for various reasons, including body-camera footage from officers subjecting arrests to additional scrutiny.
Greene mentioned an example of Matthew Perna, a Pennsylvania man who pleaded guilty to charges stemming from the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6 and died by suicide last year while awaiting sentencing. Perna entered the Capitol on Jan. 6 and stayed inside for about 20 minutes, during which he took video of the crowd there.
Perna’s family said he died from a “broken heart” and partially blamed the government prosecution for leading to his death.
Greene said Perna “peacefully” entered the Capitol, did not assault anyone or damage any property and cooperated with the FBI. She said Graves issued a request to delay Perna’s sentencing to allow more time to request a longer sentence for him, despite him not hurting anyone.
“And this is what you’ve done repeatedly, over and over, for those who pled or were convicted on Jan. 6,” she said.
Greene has pushed back on the treatment of Jan. 6 defendants in the past two years. She has on multiple occasions called for the release of all security footage taken during the attack and alleged that the defendants awaiting trial were being “mistreated” following a March visit to the D.C. jail where they were being held.
Graves has overseen the prosecution of many of the defendants facing charges over their conduct during the riot.
Greene last summer filed articles of impeachment against Garland over the FBI's search of former President Trump's Mar-a-Lago property for classified and sensitive documents.
-- Updated 5:49 p.m.
Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene confidently predicted President Joe Biden “will be impeached” following a bombshell report alleging he engaged in criminal activity.
House Oversight Chairman James Comer (R-KY) and Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) announced Wednesday that a whistleblower had come forth claiming the DOJ and FBI possess a file describing an alleged “criminal scheme” between Biden and a foreign national while he was serving as Vice President.
Grassley has described the whistleblower as “credible.”
Comer subpoenaed the form in question which the accuser claims “describes an alleged criminal scheme involving then-Vice President Biden and a foreign national relating to the exchange of money for policy decisions.”
They claim the DOJ has the document in their possession.
Axios describes the claims as “the most direct allegation against President Biden himself.”
Comer’s subpoena is demanding the document within a week.
@RepJamesComer & @ChuckGrassley reveal the existence of an FBI record alleging then-VP Biden engaged in a bribery scheme with a foreign national.
According to a whistleblower, this record details an alleged arrangement involving an exchange of money for policy decisions.… pic.twitter.com/6yLwPLi8Hw
— Oversight Committee (@GOPoversight) May 3, 2023
RELATED: GOP Senator Grassley Accuses FBI of Covering Up Biden Family ‘Potential Criminal Conduct’
Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) posted a ‘breaking news’ video along with a copy of the joint letter from Grassley and Comer suggesting she now has “evidence” to prove President Biden’s alleged “criminal scheme.”
While the House Oversight Committee has not procured the document claimed to be in possession of the DOJ as of yet, Greene insists the group will continue to investigate Biden’s potential pay-for-play scheme with foreign nationals.
Greene claims the material would allegedly contain “proof and information that Joe Biden, as Vice President of the United States, actually interacted with a foreign national and made a deal with a foreign national in exchange for money.”
Breaking News
— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene
(@RepMTG) May 3, 2023
In a subsequent interview on Steve Bannon’s podcast, Greene suggests impeachment might finally be on the table.
“Now on the Oversight Committee, because we have real subpoena powers, we have the power to investigate and we have the power to do what we’re doing now,” she said.
“And that form shows the proof that Joe Biden took a money payment from a foreign national in exchange for policy decisions while he was vice president of the United States,” Greene claims.
She added: “This means that Joe Biden will be impeached.”
— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) May 3, 2023
RELATED: Joe Biden Named in Email Discussing Call With Hunter About Major Gas Deal With China
Grassley, in an interview with Fox News’ Sandra Smith, reiterated that the whistleblower is viewed as “credible” by the Committee.
“So the Justice Department, the FBI needs to come clean to the American people, what they did with the document, because we know the document exists from very credible whistleblower information that we got,” insists Grassley.
“We really need to know what steps did the Justice Department and FBI take to investigate and to vet the document to determine if it’s accurate or not?”
If they saw the name Biden and viewed it as evidence of a ‘criminal scheme’ those steps most likely involved burying it as deep as humanly possible.
Where are 51 former intelligence officials when you need them! Quick, someone get Blinken on the phone!
— Whispers of Dementia (@mgEyesOpen) May 3, 2023
“If the Justice Department and the FBI have any hopes of redeeming their once trusted position with the American people, Garland and Wray must answer this subpoena and tell us what they’re doing with this information that we think is very credible based upon what whistleblowers are telling us,” added Grassley.
The Iowa congressman has been at the forefront of investigating corruption in the Biden family.
Prior to this report, Grassley accused the FBI of hiding ‘potential criminal conduct’ by the Biden family.
Representative Comer recently suggested at least a dozen relatives of President Biden could be exposed in foreign money deals.
A statement from the White House does not expressly deny any of the accusations but blows off the whistleblower claims as more of the same from Republicans.
“For going on 5 years now, Republicans in Congress have been lobbing unfounded politically-motivated attacks against [Biden] without offering evidence for their claims,” tweeted spokesman Ian Sams.
For going on 5 years now, Republicans in Congress have been lobbing unfounded politically-motivated attacks against @POTUS without offering evidence for their claims. Or evidence of decisions influenced by anything other than U.S. interests.
They prefer trafficking in innuendo. https://t.co/ZjV46xvjit
— Ian Sams (@IanSams46) May 3, 2023
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has suggested the allegations of criminal activity involving the “big guy” are so prevalent that he’s transferring the nickname ‘Crooked’ from Hillary Clinton to ‘Crooked Joe Biden.’
Comer has been indicating a press conference may come early this month where he intends to discuss the committee’s findings regarding “influence peddling” by Biden family members.
Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”
The post Joe Biden ‘Will Be Impeached’ Over Report Allegedly Linking Him to ‘Criminal Scheme,’ Says MTG appeared first on The Political Insider.
By James Varney for RealClearInvestigations
It’s almost an understatement to say that Republican candidates campaigned hawkishly on border control in the runup to the 2022 midterms: As they decried the flow of illegal immigrants and drugs from Mexico, many vowed to impeach the man they largely blamed for the mess, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.
Republicans have continued hammering Mayorkas since taking control of the House. Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, who called the flooding of more than 5 million illegal immigrants across the southern border since President Biden took office an “intentional” policy, has made several visits to the U.S.-Mexico border with other Republicans, and the House has held multiple hearings on immigration.
RELATED: Mayorkas Supports ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban But Can’t Define ‘Assault Weapons’
But as winter has turned to spring, the GOP has taken little action to remove Mayorkas. Republicans Andy Biggs of Arizona and Pat Fallon of Texas have each filed bills, but the House Judiciary Committee, from which any impeachment move must come, has not taken up either resolution.
Conservative groups focused on the southern border told RealClearInvestigations that impeachment did not come up during recent meetings in Washington.
“I just came from the Hill and a bunch of meetings with staffers and they’re reporting the same thing; one said the conference is split, with a lot of GOP ‘George W. Bush types’ who love the cheap labor for American industry and agriculture,” said Todd Bensman of the conservative Center for Immigration Studies and author of “Overrun: How Joe Biden Unleashed the Greatest Border Crisis in U.S. History.”
Bensman calls it an “old story,” but cheap labor is only part of it. Republicans aren’t united on this issue because some fear that following through on impeachment talk will alienate the moderate swing voters that the GOP needs to remain in control of the House.
Even Republicans who have publicly attacked Mayorkas are now reticent about discussing impeachment. RCI reached out to 16 GOP House members for comment. Neither Biggs nor Fallon responded. Virginia Rep. Bob Good, a member of the Freedom Caucus who is co-sponsor of both resolutions, declined to comment on the record. Other outspoken administration critics such as Dan Crenshaw of Texas, Tom McClintock of California, and Matt Gaetz of Florida did not respond.
Only two of the 16 Republican House members agreed to speak on the record.
“I have repeatedly called for his impeachment and am confident that Chairman Jordan will hold true to his word of impeaching Mayorkas for overseeing an unprecedented surge of illegal activity at our southern border,” Rep. Paul Gosar of Arizona said.
RELATED: Cruz to Mayorkas: ‘If You Had Integrity, You Would Resign’
Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania said Biden administration officials have lied about what they have done at the border but was more circumspect on impeachment, suggesting a wait-and-see attitude may be behind the aggressive rhetoric.
“I’m not on the Judiciary Committee and it would have to come from there,” he said. “My hope is that at least some information will come from hearings because some members legitimately have some questions.”
Perry and others said they would like to see the Judiciary Committee make the case for impeachment, a process Jordan appears to be favoring. For the moment, however, the only concrete step Republicans have taken is a symbolic gesture by Rep. Chip Roy of Texas to try to cut Mayorkas’ salary from the DHS budget.
The bills filed by Reps. Biggs and Fallon contend that Mayorkas’s conduct meets the constitutional threshold for impeachment, “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Fallon’s bill, H. Res. 8, alleges that the secretary has violated the oath all cabinet members take to “faithfully uphold” the laws of the United States by failing to enforce:
While referencing those two laws, the Biggs resolution, H. Res. 582, also accuses Mayorkas of violating the Public Health Services Act by failing to protect U.S. citizens from “risk and exposure to and contracting Covid-19 by refusing to take necessary steps to prevent contagious illegal aliens from entering the United States.”
In sum, the Biggs resolution concludes Mayorkas should be impeached because “his actions have subverted the will of Congress and the core tenets of the Constitution.”
RCI reached out repeatedly to a dozen Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee seeking comment on a possible impeachment of Mayorkas and their reaction. None of them responded.
RELATED: Mayorkas Falsely Claimed Border is ‘Closed’ Ahead of Biden Trip to El Paso
Mayorkas has stated repeatedly he has no intention of resigning, a suggestion Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas made again Tuesday when Mayorkas appeared at a Senate committee hearing. “If you had any integrity you would resign,” Cruz said.
The volley came after the two got into a verbal spat over how truthful the administration has been about the border. Cruz cited comments by White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre that people are “not walking across the border” along with photographs of people doing just that. “You claim you care, Mr. Secretary –– that is a lie,” Cruz said.
Cruz again accused Mayorkas of dissembling after the DHS chief would not answer a question about whether Jean-Pierre lied. Mayorkas called Cruz’s accusation “revolting.”
Nevertheless, the department is bracing for a possible impeachment and taking steps for Mayorkas’ defense. A government contract was signed with the law firm Debevoise & Plimpton to provide legal assistance to the secretary; that contract would kick in only if the Judiciary Committee moved an impeachment motion to the House floor.
Debevoise & Plimpton did not respond to a request for comment about the arrangement. Biden administration officials familiar with it said it was necessary because the impeachment of a cabinet secretary is so rare none of its legal staff has any relevant experience.
The terms of the contract were not disclosed, although officials pointed to examples in the past where House Republicans hired outside legal counsel to assist it on legislation that proved legally fraught.
A DHS spokesperson said the contract was necessary to “ensure the Department’s vital mission is not interrupted by the unprecedented, unjustified and partisan impeachment efforts of some members of Congress, who have already taken steps to initiate proceedings.”
History shows the House can move swiftly on impeachment if members choose to. The Democratic majority, along with a handful of Republicans, voted to impeach departing President Trump just one week after the post-election riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
RELATED: New U.S. Border Data: 284 Suspected Terrorists Apprehended So Far in Fiscal 2023
Defenders of the government’s current border policies say that the conservatives’ argument is flawed. The Biden administration’s approach is basically a relaxation of the Trump administration’s more stringent strategy. As such, they amount to policy differences between the two major political parties and fall far short of any “crimes and misdemeanors” that would justify impeachment.
But, as RCI has previously reported, President Biden’s policies have marked a sharp break from his predecessor’s, since Biden’s first day in office, when he signed seven executive orders on immigration that, among other things, suspended deportations.
Hans von Spakovsky, a senior fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation who co-authored the February report, “The Case for Impeachment of Alejandro Nicholas Mayorkas Secretary of Homeland Security,” defended the impeachment argument from liberals who deride it as purely political.
“It inaccurately and incorrectly asserts that we are confusing the requirements of the Immigration and Naturalization Act with the Trump administration policies,” he said. “Our analysis is based not on disagreeing with the policies implemented by Mayorkas, but with his violation of federal immigration law.”
“I think we have laid out in our paper what we think the basis is for impeachment,” von Spakovsky told RCI. They include the claims that Mayorkas:
Von Spakovsky added that “the misguided priorities of Mayorkas have resulted in a huge backlog in the adjudication system that unfairly hurts the many thousands of U.S. citizens and lawful applicants whose immigration matters are delayed many months.”
RELATED: There Have Already Been 1.6 Million Known Illegal Border Crossings This Fiscal Year
Although von Spakovsky and others argue impeachment is warranted “consistent with U.S. history and constitutional traditions,” it would also be a highly unusual move. Only one cabinet member has ever been impeached, President Ulysses S. Grant’s War Secretary William Belknap in 1876, but he resigned the same day the House voted unanimously against him.
Attorney General Harry Daugherty in 1922 and Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon in 1932 also faced possible impeachment proceedings by the House, but the former resigned in 1924 and the latter left the cabinet and became U.S. ambassador to England.
Impeachment supporters also point to the dangers the Biden administration’s porous border have created. In addition to the humanitarian issues of hundreds of thousands of people migrating through Mexico to the U.S., and the money they have paid to Mexican cartels to facilitate their passage, the southern border has become the main conduit for deadly illicit fentanyl.
Scott Perry said his constituents would like to see the Republicans do more than simply talk about the border crisis, though he noted that Mayorkas is the agent who carries out policies set by President Biden.
“It’s chaos down there with the fentanyl and the cartels making millions of dollars,” he said.
“Most of our constituents are distraught about that and want it fixed, and many would like accountability for how it occurred. Ultimately, the president is responsible so why not impeach him?”
But as to what might actually happen with Mayorkas, Perry acknowledged he wasn’t sure.
“My sense is that with the Judicial Committee holding hearings we are working toward those kind of things,” he said. “That will go to the fact-finding we need to have to convince some of our skeptical members.”
Syndicated with permission from RealClearWire.
The post Why Hasn’t the GOP Yet Walked the Walk on Its Mayorkas Impeachment Talk? appeared first on The Political Insider.
A House Democrat said he might vote in favor of impeaching Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas over the construction of two 30-foot walls at the border with Mexico.
Rep. Juan Vargas (D-Calif.) said at a press conference on Friday that he might vote for an impeachment resolution if Republicans bring one up against Mayorkas, though for different reasoning than his GOP colleagues.
While Republicans have slammed Mayorkas and the Biden administration for high numbers of undocumented immigrants coming into the country, Vargas said he might vote to impeach Mayorkas over the issue of the border walls being built at Friendship Park in San Diego.
The park is located on a cliff over the Pacific Ocean between San Diego and Tijuana, Mexico, according to Border Report, an outlet owned by Nexstar Media Group that focuses on coverage of the U.S.-Mexico border.
The Hill is also owned by Nexstar.
Vargas said he wants Mayorkas and President Biden to halt the construction of the walls at Friendship Park, which Border Report reported has served as a meeting place for families to gather with a wall between them.
“He told us that he would help us, and he hasn’t done it,” Vargas said, referring to Mayorkas. “He betrayed us.”
The outlet reported that U.S. Border Patrol officials have said the existing barriers are decaying and have become a danger to the public, migrants and agents in the area. They have said the barriers need to be replaced with the new walls.
But Vargas, who represents the area in the House, and other local leaders have expressed concerns that the walls will end public access to the area. Vargas said Mayorkas promised him that the construction would be stopped.
The construction started a few weeks ago and is expected to be completed in six months, the outlet reported.
The Department of Homeland Security hired an outside law firm last month to help Mayorkas respond to a potential Republican-led impeachment inquiry. Mayorkas has vowed that he would not be pushed out of his position by his opponents.
Republicans in the House have been somewhat divided about the path forward on Mayorkas, however, as some wanted to impeach Mayorkas immediately upon the GOP taking control of the House, while others wanted to take time to build a case against him.
Two articles of impeachment have been introduced in the House against Mayorkas.
Vargas is the first Democrat to publicly say they are open to considering an impeachment vote against Mayorkas.