Mayorkas Impeachment Fails (Succeeds a week later)

[essentialsaltes]

House GOP fails to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas​

Three Republicans — Colorado Rep. Ken Buck, Wisconsin Rep. Mike Gallagher and California Rep. Tom McClintock — joined the Democrats in voting against the resolution to impeach Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

GOP Rep. Blake Moore joined the no side to allow House Republicans to bring up the vote again.

ETA: Try #2 has succeeded

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Shame. I was really looking forward to seeing this fail in the Senate.

 

[essentialsaltes]

https://www.axios.com/2024/02/06/house-republican-mcclintock-oppose-mayorkas-impeachment

McClintock wrote in a 10-page memo that the articles of impeachment drafted by the Homeland Security Committee “fail to identify an impeachable crime that Mayorkas has committed.”

(and quotes A Man for All Seasons)

 

[seeking.IAM]

One small step toward ending impeachment as a political weapon.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Shame. I was really looking forward to seeing this fail in the Senate.

We may well see that. Apparently they will try again when Steve Scalise is back from medical treatment, which may be enough to push it through.

In some ways that's the best of both worlds in how it reflects on the GOP House.

Their failure of organization and nose counting has already resulted in a failed vote.

The probable huge bipartisan swat-down in the Senate will demonstrate their failure to offer anything useful for the nation.

 

[Brihaha]

It would behoove America if voters were actually paying attention to the staggering ineptitude in congress and vote accordingly. Find me a house republican who deserves reelection and I'll find you that $5,000,000 Mike Lindell promised to pay anyone who disproved his election fraud claims!

 

[stevil]

https://www.axios.com/2024/02/06/house-republican-mcclintock-oppose-mayorkas-impeachment

McClintock wrote in a 10-page memo that the articles of impeachment drafted by the Homeland Security Committee “fail to identify an impeachable crime that Mayorkas has committed.”

(and quotes A Man for All Seasons)

I'd be interested to know why so many Republicans voted for impeachment where there was no evidence of an impeachable crime.

 

[essentialsaltes]

 

[wing2000]

House GOP fails to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas​

Three Republicans — Colorado Rep. Ken Buck, Wisconsin Rep. Mike Gallagher and California Rep. Tom McClintock — joined the Democrats in voting against the resolution to impeach Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

GOP Rep. Blake Moore joined the no side to allow House Republicans to bring up the vote again.

Only 3 Republicans understand policy disagremeents are not grounds for impeachment of a cabninet officer?

 

[wing2000]

Johnson is 0-2 ....in 1 day of House voting:

The House failed to pass a clean $17.6 billion Israel aid bill on Tuesday as Congress struggles to find some vehicle that could clear critical money for foreign allies.

The measure to aid the U.S. ally in its war against Hamas went down 250-180, and was considered under an expedited procedure requiring two-thirds support. Nearly four dozen Democrats voted yes while more than a dozen Republicans opposed the measure.

House fails to pass standalone Israel aid bill

“It's just a political stunt by the Republicans and the speaker," said Rep. Rosa DeLauro, summing up Democrats' feelings on the measure.

www.politico.com

 

[stevil]

Only 3 Republicans understand policy disagremeents are not grounds for impeachment of a cabninet officer?

The idea is that impeachment is for high crimes and misdameanors,
But in practice it's simply a way the House and the Senate can remove an elected official from office, simply by voting (>50% in the House AND >66% in the Senate).

Typically a person exposed for doing crimes would remove themselves from office(for the integrity of the House, the Senate, the party). A person without integrity, without concern for the institutions or party will not (especially if they have a lot of influence over party members.

So when they won't quit, this provision is here so that other members have the opportunity to kick these people out.

But there is no check and balance to ensure that the House and the Senate do what they are supposed to do. They can decide not to impeach and not to convict someone who has been proven guilty of crimes, and they can decide to impeach and convict someone that has not been proven guilty of crimes. It is up to them how they want to vote.

The ultimate power is with the people. The people can decide to enforce integrity into the House and Senate by taking note of who votes to impeach or not, who votes to convict or not. The people can clean up the corruption in government by not voting for corrupt government members next time the votes happen. If the people did vote out House and Senate members for not following the evidence and upholding the integrity of office, then this would send a clear message to members, the next time an impeachment hearing happens, to take the process seriously.

HOWEVER, in an environment where the people don't care about upholding the law or the integrity of the office, then impeachment is for something entirely different (not for high crimes and misdemeanors).
Instead, impeachment could be for disloyalty to D Trump. If D Trump wants someone impeached and convicted then members of D Trump's party are expected to vote that way (regardless of evidence or crimes). If they don't vote that way, then the Republican supporters will vote THEM out of office when the time comes.

It seems, to me that in today's environment the Democratic Party members mostly use impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors and the Republic Party members mostly use if for loyalty to D Trump. And this is supported by most of the Democratic party supporters who want impeachment to be about high crimes and misdemeanors and most of the Republican party supporters who want impeachment to be about loyalty to D Trump.

 

[Fantine]

House Republicans vowing to defeat the bipartisan immigration bill want to fault him for not doing a job they won't give him the tools to accomplish!
Hypocritical.

 

[stevil]

House Republicans vowing to defeat the bipartisan immigration bill want to fault him for not doing a job they won't give him the tools to accomplish!
Hypocritical.

They hate the country. They will sabotage it and destroy it, if they think it will help them gain power.

 

[Ana the Ist]

https://www.axios.com/2024/02/06/house-republican-mcclintock-oppose-mayorkas-impeachment

McClintock wrote in a 10-page memo that the articles of impeachment drafted by the Homeland Security Committee “fail to identify an impeachable crime that Mayorkas has committed.”

(and quotes A Man for All Seasons)

That's fair....it's not a crime to be incompetent.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The idea is that impeachment is for high crimes and misdameanors,
But in practice it's simply a way the House and the Senate can remove an elected official from office, simply by voting (>50% in the House AND >66% in the Senate).

Typically a person exposed for doing crimes would remove themselves from office(for the integrity of the House, the Senate, the party). A person without integrity, without concern for the institutions or party will not (especially if they have a lot of influence over party members.

So when they won't quit, this provision is here so that other members have the opportunity to kick these people out.

But there is no check and balance to ensure that the House and the Senate do what they are supposed to do. They can decide not to impeach and not to convict someone who has been proven guilty of crimes, and they can decide to impeach and convict someone that has not been proven guilty of crimes. It is up to them how they want to vote.

The ultimate power is with the people. The people can decide to enforce integrity into the House and Senate by taking note of who votes to impeach or not, who votes to convict or not. The people can clean up the corruption in government by not voting for corrupt government members next time the votes happen. If the people did vote out House and Senate members for not following the evidence and upholding the integrity of office, then this would send a clear message to members, the next time an impeachment hearing happens, to take the process seriously.

HOWEVER, in an environment where the people don't care about upholding the law or the integrity of the office, then impeachment is for something entirely different (not for high crimes and misdemeanors).
Instead, impeachment could be for disloyalty to D Trump. If D Trump wants someone impeached and convicted then members of D Trump's party are expected to vote that way (regardless of evidence or crimes). If they don't vote that way, then the Republican supporters will vote THEM out of office when the time comes.

It seems, to me that in today's environment the Democratic Party members mostly use impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors and the Republic Party members mostly use if for loyalty to D Trump. And this is supported by most of the Democratic party supporters who want impeachment to be about high crimes and misdemeanors and most of the Republican party supporters who want impeachment to be about loyalty to D Trump.

I have no idea where you're coming up with this. It's like a fantasy version of reality. Especially the part where you said, and I quote...

"Typically a person exposed for committing crimes would remove themselves."

I mean....good grief....

Here's a crime for you....

Ukraine: Apparent Russian Cluster Munition Attack

Nine civilians were killed and more than a dozen injured in an apparent Russian cluster munition attack on July 8, 2023, in a residential district of the Ukrainian town of Lyman. Russia’s repeated use of cluster munitions since the start of its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 has...

www.hrw.org

As international law clearly states, the stockpiling, use, or sale of cluster bombs is considered a war crime by the UN.

Why the US is willing to send Ukraine cluster munitions now

The Biden administration has agreed to provide controversial cluster munitions to Ukraine that it says could help its forces penetrate Russia's defensive lines, but that many nations have pledged not to use again due to risks to civilians.

apnews.com

We sold the Ukraine cluster bombs. The Biden administration has followed a consistent tradition of US presidents committing war crimes.

 

[sprknjc]

We will see if the politics change much if any after the November federal election. A long election season like the movie The Longest Yard is expected someone else shared with me, with potentially more than two Presidential winners at this time, talked about more elsewhere in this subforum recently and all of the Congressional races. Only God now knows what will happen. Life can change in an instant. that so called 1% chance, though keeping in mind James 4:13-16 . Examples as in Los Angeles flooding currently, and I was less than 3000 feet from the Pentagon on 9-11-2001 and hiked 9 miles from there that day, but with blessing of good weather and mostly on a good regional hiking biking trail.

 

[stevil]

I have no idea where you're coming up with this. It's like a fantasy version of reality. Especially the part where you said, and I quote...

"Typically a person exposed for committing crimes would remove themselves."

I mean....good grief....

Perhaps comprehension isn't your thing.
Nixon got caught in crimes, He then stood down from his president role. He didn't wait for impeachment.

 

[Valletta]

House Republicans vowing to defeat the bipartisan immigration bill want to fault him for not doing a job they won't give him the tools to accomplish!
Hypocritical.

The whole purpose of the bill was to get some bill passed (Chuck Shumer knew this bill, which would make the disaster worse, had zero chance of passing the House) could give Democrats running for re-election some talking point--to try and blame their own purposeful disaster on Trump and "extreme MAGAs." They throw up their hands and say we really wanted to solve the problem but it was the fault of those darn Trump fanatics.

 

[Fantine]

Democrats did a lot of compromising--much more than party progressives felt was wise.
No bipartisan bill gets passed without compromise.
The infrastructure bill, for example, was cut about 66%--and now the Republicans who voted against it try to claim credit for the good it has done.
But rather than compromise, Abbott and 14 other Republican governors defy the Supreme Court, call up their National Guards, support children perishing in Rio Grande razor wire, etc.
"Half a loaf" of what they wanted certainly better than none, and much better than immigrants dying at sea.

 

[Valletta]

Democrats did a lot of compromising--much more than party progressives felt was wise.
No bipartisan bill gets passed without compromise.
The infrastructure bill, for example, was cut about 66%--and now the Republicans who voted against it try to claim credit for the good it has done.
But rather than compromise, Abbott and 14 other Republican governors defy the Supreme Court, call up their National Guards, support children perishing in Rio Grande razor wire, etc.
"Half a loaf" of what they wanted certainly better than none, and much better than immigrants dying at sea.

There are children being trafficked and dying every day because of Joe's border policies. He refuses to roll back his horrific policies. For three years the Biden administration lied to the American public, claiming the border was safe, secure, and closed. He had the support of the major media in the cover-up of what was going on. Only because of the busing to sanctuary cities and the complaint of Democrat mayors like Mayor Adams is the American public starting to realize the extent of the disaster. Joe still won't reverse course on his orders of the first hundred days, which he could reverse with the stroke of a pen. Each day he is steadfast more people needlessly die. Now we know why Democrats in the Senate concealed the text of the bill from the American people for so long. The Senate bill makes the disaster worse, making some of Joe's terrifying policies law. It's like Hamas saying let's compromise and we will kill 700 more Jews.