Below is my column in the Daily Beast on the impeachment proceedings of Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas. Despite my long-criticism of Mayorkas, I do not believe that the current evidence against him would rise to the level of an impeachable offense. The hearings this week may reveal conduct that reaches the level of a high crime and misdemeanor. However, that evidence needs to be clear and not simply the equivalent to “vote of no confidence” in a controversial cabinet member.
Here is the column:
Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas has been denounced as dishonest, duplicitous, and derelict by his critics. In my view, all of those things are manifestly true. It is also true, in my opinion, that none of those things amount to high crimes and misdemeanors warranting his impeachment.
The Republican push to impeach Mayorkas has been gaining steam as record numbers of undocumented migrants pour over our Southern border. Even many Democrats are now alarmed by the numbers and the threat that they pose to our national security and to our economy. Sanctuary cities from Chicago to New York are actively trying to prevent new migrants from seeking sanctuary within their own borders.
At the center of all of this is Mayorkas, who has long been viewed as an enabling figure for illegal migrations. He is also accused of implementing Biden policy changes that removed barriers to migrants, including rescinding the “Stay in Mexico” rule.
Some of us have also questioned his integrity, particularly in controversies like the false claims that border agents whipped migrants in Texas.
Mayorkas knew the allegations against his own personnel were debunked, but showed little concern or compassion for agents, particularly after President Joe Biden promised they would be punished before any investigation had even begun.
However, being a bad person is not impeachable—or many cabinets would be largely empty.
Moreover, being bad at your job is not an impeachable offense. Even really bad. Even Mayorkas bad. If that were the case, he would be only the latest in a long line of cabinet officers frog-marched into Congress for constitutional termination.
In history, there has only been one cabinet member impeached. That was Secretary of War William Belknap in 1876. That alone should concentrate the mind of members. Despite decades of controversial cabinet members accused of flaunting the law or abusing their positions, Congress has only crossed this Rubicon once. There has existed a certain detente between the parties; an understanding that policy-based impeachments could open up endless tit-for-tat impeachment politics.
The charges against Belknap were serious, in that he had allegedly “disregarded his duty as Secretary of War, and basely prostituted his high office to his lust for private gain.” The alleged bribes in contracts in the Indian territories would have constituted impeachable offenses, but Belknap had already left office. His case raised the question of retroactive impeachments for former federal officers.
The jurisdictional concerns made the difference for Belknap. The final vote on the closest article was 37 to 25 in favor of impeachment—four votes short of the number needed for conviction.
There is no jurisdictional question for Mayorkas, but there is also no current evidence that he is corrupt or committed an impeachable offense. He can be legitimately accused of effectuating an open border policy, but that is a disagreement on policy that is traced to the President.
In fairness to the GOP, they allege that Mayorkas is violating federal law in releasing what he now reportedly admits is over 85 percent of illegal migrants into the country as well as alleged false statements to Congress. Such releases, however, occurred in prior administrations and the merits of these claims are still being argued in court.
The courts have long recognized that presidents are allowed to establish priorities in the enforcement of federal laws, even when those priorities tend to lower enforcement for certain groups or areas. It is a matter of discretion.
Indeed, even under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) which holds the government liable for civil damages, there is a discretionary function exception codified under 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a) for policy-based judgments.
Immigration has long been an area of intense policy disagreements. Trump policies were denounced by critics as draconian or even racist. Biden’s policies have been denounced as fueling illegal crossings and frustrating efforts to curtail the flow, particularly by border states.
In my view, Biden has been dead wrong on immigration, but voters will soon have an opportunity to render a judgment on those policies in the election. Mayorkas has carried out those policies. What has not been shown is conduct by the secretary that could be viewed as criminal or impeachable.
If Mayorkas is violating federal law, he can be brought to court to enjoin his actions. A prior case seeking to prevent the termination of the “Stay in Mexico” policy resulted in a win for the Biden administration in Biden v. Texas, when the Supreme Court ruled the president had the authority to revoke the Migrant Protection Protocols.
During the Constitutional Convention, there was a debate over the grounds for impeachment with George Mason arguing for a broad scope of offenses that could “subvert the Constitution.” His view was rejected. Most notably, there was a rejection of “maladministration” as a basis for impeachment.
An English trial of Warren Hastings weighed heavily on the forging of the impeachment standard. The former governor of India was charged with various offenses including “mismanagement and misgovernment… and mistreatment of various provinces.” While figures like Mason saw the need for the adoption of a similarly broad definition, his suggestion of maladministration was rejected as too broad.
What Mayorkas is guilty of is maladministration. He has failed to secure the Southern border and has long denied the gravity of this crisis, including refusing to call it a crisis even as daily and monthly crossings reached unprecedented levels.
None of this means that a cabinet member cannot be impeached. However, not like this. Not for maladministration.
I hold no brief for Alejandro Mayorkas. However, I hold the Constitution more dearly than I despise his tenure. Absent some new evidence, I cannot see the limiting principle that would allow the House to impeach Mayorkas without potentially making any policy disagreement with a cabinet member a high crime and misdemeanor. That is a slippery slope that we would be wise to avoid. Indeed, it is precisely the temptation that the Framers thought they had avoided by rejecting standards like maladministration.
That is why the case has not been made to impeach Alejandro Mayorkas.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Chair of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and previously testified in impeachment hearings of Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden.
Maybe this is even simpler: Congress, the people’s representatives (remember The People?) is using its ‘check’ to ‘balance’ the Executive. Today, the Executive branch is giving citizens two proverbial middle fingers with an in-your-face “F-U” when asked why they refuse to perform required Constitutional duties, you know, like Preserving, Protecting and Defending the Constitution. Impeachment only means loss of job for those who refuse to do so and get called on it. It’s the right call to make under the current circumstances.
In history, there has only been one cabinet member impeached. That was Secretary of War William Belknap in 1876. That alone should concentrate the mind of members.
That is and will remain one of the weakest reasons to avoid do anything. In history, never have we set records on illegal immigration like we have over the last 3 years. In history, never have we had enough drugs pouring into our country to kill every man, woman and child, than we do right now. In history, never have we had a smirking SoS like Mayorkas so flagrantly put at risk our national security at our borders. Impeach this piece of garbage…yesterday!
Impeaching Mayorkas would just mean someone else would be implementing Joe Biden policies.
That is highly unlikely.
Impeaching Mayorkas would make it clear that if you wish to remain in office, you will follow the actual law.
I would note that any replacement for Mayorkas would have to be confirmed by the Senate.
Even Democrats would not confirm Mayorkas today.
Impeaching Mayorkas would just mean someone else would be implementing
Joe Bidenthe Regime’s policies.Hunter Biden strolling in and out of his own contempt of Congress hearing is the Regime’s way of telling Congress to go f*ck themselves. As principled as it would be to impeach Mayorkas, Congress cannot impeach the Regime. Start prepping.
That was unbeleivably stupid and the house should have been better prepared for that. Commer should have had officiers from the Sargent of Arms office present. He should have had them detain Hunter and he should have gone into private session and started the questioning of Hunter.
But to do those things, you have to avoid being surprised.
Hunter’s conduct was atleast possible, they should have been prepared.
OLLY,
We have had the FBI, on the Hill, saying they are very concerned about terrorists coming through the southern border. They have apprehended some 100 of them, but like all the drugs pouring through, how many have they missed?
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2019/01/07/mythfact-known-and-suspected-terroristsspecial-interest-aliens
This link shows the Trump administration was also concerned about terrorists coming through the southern border. Does that mean that Kirstjen Nielsen should have been impeached?
It is amazing how many folks on this blog let their affinity for a political party cloud their ability to think critically.
what’s more amazing is watching you parade in nails, hair, hips and heels while doing it flawlessly. You go gurrrllll
eb
REGARDING ABOVE:
I get no credit for that choreography even if I taught that beaaatttch how to twirl in my heels! The nerve
Well, now we know concerned citizen is also turdrunner/lawn boy and one of the slimy green anonymous here.
Not me.
Homophobic much? Bigot
There is a difference between Nielsen’s concern that she might not have addressed every possible means that terrorists could enter, and Mayorkas not giving a damn.
When you actually attempt to do your job – we decide whether to hold you accountable if you fail.
When you do not do your job – you are immediately accountable.
Eighth para, should be “flouting” not “flaunting” the law.
Mayorkas is Obama’s “POPULATION REPLACEMENT” czar.
Nancy Mace, a Republican congresswoman, attacking him and saying he should be jailed.
“It does not matter who you are … who your father is or your last name,” Ms Mace said. “Yes, I’m looking at you, Hunter Biden. You are not above the law.”
Ms Mace added: “You are the epitome of white privilege … what are you afraid of? You have no balls to come up here … I think Hunter Biden should be arrested right here, right now, and go straight to jail.”
Hunter could not have done much more to assure that he will be held in contempt.
I like the “no balls” remark; perhaps it’s the first time in history that the term “balls” has been used in Congress in this way.
Saying Biden has “white privilege” on the other hand is ridiculous. First of all, it gives credence to the concept, when it deserves none — the concept arises out of the notion of “systemic racism” invented by the critical race theorists. Secondly, even if the concept had some reality, it would not apply to Hunter Biden. His is a political privilege, arising out of his father’s positions in power over four decades, and his affiliation with the Democratic Party.
Impeaching Mayorkas is like arresting a mafia hitman and thinking crime will stop. The boss will just get another minion to do the dirty work. The border is open because that’s what “Biden” wants, or at least that’s what his puppetmasters want. At least impeaching “Biden” should give us more information. He’s not going to get convicted, no matter how many wishes on a star Professor Turley makes, and he’ll be the candidate in 2024. But the impeachment proceedings can showcase the corruption on cspan for all to see. Democrats like Turley are still going to vote for him. But at least they won’t be able to tell their kids and grandkids that they didn’t know. You know.
“It’s the [vote], stupid!”
– James Carville
__________________
Ah, ha! You have arrived. Mayorkas is merely a symptom. The American Founders restricted the vote in their restricted-vote republic. They never intended for one-man, one-vote demoCRAZY. The vote in a democracy has been restricted since inception in Greece.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Turnout in 1788 was 11.6% – Voter criteria were male, European, 21, 50 lbs. Sterling/50 acres – immigrants were required to be “…free white person(s)…” further restricting the vote.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“the people are nothing but a great beast…
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value.”
– Alexander Hamilton
________________________
“The true reason (says Blackstone) of requiring any qualification, with regard to property in voters, is to exclude such persons, as are in so mean a situation, that they are esteemed to have no will of their own.”
“If it were probable that every man would give his vote freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote… But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other.”
– Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 1775
_______________________________________
“[We gave you] a [restricted-vote] republic, if you can keep it.”
– Ben Franklin, 1787
Impeaching Mayorkas will make Clear to Biden that he is not king.
Is there no longer a mod on this site? An awful lot of personal insults staying in the comments, and i haven’t seen a comment from the former mod in some time. The anonymous posts are getting a little tiresome.
James, you’re just a puppet of Tom/Estovir. In other words, ‘You don’t really exist’. So why should you even care about insults on this blog?
Slow day at the bath house again Sammy? Gays blocked you on Grindr Again!?!!
Say hello the your Jewish wife and children. She will never swallow you like I did
James,
Yeah, a number of truly ugly people making dumb comments.
Best to just scroll past.
Engage with those who are worthy of respect.
Upstate Farmer is Tom/ Estovir talking to James, another Tom/Estovir puppet. But we’re not supposed to know!
“Is there no longer a mod on this site? ”
I have seen little evidence of moderation for some time.
“An awful lot of personal insults staying in the comments,”
I have NEVER seen evidence that personal insults – aside from those targeting Turley resulted in getting banned.
Initially I was bothered.
Increasingly I think that the reduced moderation is a good thing.
Let people show you who they are and then judge them accordingly.
I haven’t seen any evidence of a moderator moderating this site. It’s a pity. The signal-to-noise ratio is pretty much in the gutter now.
“It’s a pity. The signal-to-noise ratio is pretty much in the gutter now.”
You are correct, but you hold a good part of the blame for your use of an anonymous icon. You add to the mysticism of anonymous posters because they can now blend in with those who have a modicum of common sense.
You could easily be anonymous with any alias and icon, but you choose to act in a way that pushes the blog into the gutter.
I will prove how easy it is to be anonymous yet have an individual identity.
Anonymous, from your lack of reply we learn you don’t care about the signal to noise ratio. You are one of those that complain but do nothing to make things better. Is complaining a way to make, yourself but no one else, feel better?
Savage!!!
🤣🤣🔥🔥
You are the epitome of white privilege coming into the oversight committee spitting in our face ignoring a congressional subpoena to be deposed what are you afraid of you have no balls to come up here
“It is also true, in my opinion, that none of those things amount to high crimes and misdemeanors warranting his impeachment.”
– Professor Turley
____________________
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
– Sun Tzu
___________
Professor Turley appears not to know the enemy.
“Fundamental transformation of the United States of America” is not dissimilar to and, in fact, constitutes treason, insurrection, subversion, sedition, and every other form of overthrowing fundamental law and the nation that law establishes.
“Fundamentally transforming” America, which was created by its Founders through their Constitution and Naturalization Act of 1802, into a third world mishmash of illegal aliens who are assimilable only through unconstitutional bias, favor, and the forcible imposition of multiple, various, and sundry unconstitutional affirmative action, quota, and assistance programs providing free money and free status, irrefutably amounts to treason, crimes of high office, and misdemeanors.
Alejandro Mayorkas is vigorously completing the process of extirpating America by “population replacement,” which began with Lincoln’s unconstitutional “proclamation” of January 1, 1863, which Lincoln had no legal basis or constitutional power to issue. Lincoln was the inflection point for the termination of American freedom and the incremental implementation of the principles of communism under Karl Marx’s motto: “From each according to is ability, to each according to his needs.” Take a good look at the communist nation around you.
By continuing to import liberal illegal alien voters to reinforce the liberal illegal alien vote, Mayorkas assures that no American, constitutional, or conservative vote will ever succeed and prevail again. Americans will be voted out of America by illegal aliens. Obama et al. are laughing at Americans and spitting in the faces of the American Founders.
How it is not a crime of high office for a president, his illegal immigration czar, and his insidious, diametrically opposed, and adversarial communist party to change a nation by changing its people, by switching out its population, is beyond my ability to comprehend. Who would dare attempt anything similar to this in China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, India, and most other countries on this planet?
America is distinctly no longer America, and that is a high crime by any calculus or reckoning.
Goodnight, America.
_______________________
“WE THE PEOPLE SECURE THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY TO OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY.”
– PREAMBLE
Mayorkas is aiding and abetting the invasion of our country. It does not get worse than that in my opinion. He should be impeached, and charged with treason.
The Trump crowd and cult’s plan has been lack of evidence is the plan. Yell and scream knowing the media will cover what ever they yell and scream about. Without evidence and facts that’s all they got.
What does any of this mean ?
We are posting on the impeachment of Mayorkas. There is no issue of evidence. The question is whether Mayorkas’s lyhing and misconduct and failures rise to the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors.
Prior to Faux Trump Impeachment uno and Duo I would have said no.
But democrats have set the standard. The house can impeach for whatever reason they wish,
And the
Senate gets to decide if that impeachment claim has merit.
Regardless, there is no question of Evidence regarding Mayorkas.
There are huge questions of evidence regarding the Trump prosecutions.
We ALL know the facts. Whether those are a crime or not hinges on whether you beleive that otherwise lawful actions to challenge a lawless and fraudulent election can amount to a crime.
For most of us – the answer is NO!.
Turley Mentioned In Washington Post
In an op-ed published ahead of the hearing, Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University legal scholar who has previously appeared as a fact witness for Republicans during congressional hearings, argued that “being bad at your job is not an impeachable offense” and that “there is also no current evidence that [Mayorkas] is corrupt or committed an impeachable offense.”
“He can be legitimately accused of effectuating an open border policy, but that is a disagreement on policy that is traced to the President,” Turley argued.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/01/10/mayorkas-impeachment-border-house-republicans/
……………………………………….
The fact that Turley is mentioned here suggests that he is a pundit of significance whose opinions have influence.
Why then does Johnathan Turley allow a 6th Grade bully, Tom/Estovir, to serve as gatekeeper of these comment threads? Are 10th Grade bullies not available?
Why does George Soros allow a failed Trans with xis/xer tits hanging down to the ankles, gawd awful lisp, embarrassing wig and makeup, to spew xis/xer hormone expletive tirades on here?
Because Professor Turley feels sorry for the pathetic Peter Shill / Svelaz / Dennis / Sammy / Turdrunner / eb / Gigi….ad infinitum!!!!
Jonathan: Oral arguments were heard yesterday in the DC Court of Appeals by a 3-judge panel. It did not go well for DJT. When asked by Judge Pen about a “SEAL team 6” scenario DJT’s lawyer was reduced to arguing that a president can only be criminally charged if in an impeachment proceeding the president is convicted in the Senate. That is not the position DJT’s lawyer took in the impeachment trial. In arguing his client should not be convicted his lawyer read from the impeachment clause and stated that if not convicted the president could still be criminally prosecuted. So now DJT’s lawyer claimed just the opposite before the DC Court of Appeals panel. No doubt something the panel will want to address in their final opinion.
And there’s other breaking news. In the NY civil fraud case closing arguments are set for tomorrow before Judge Engoron. DJT now says he intends to personally deliver part of his closing arguments. He has made similar claims in the past. In the E. Jean Carroll case DJT said he would would testify. He didn’t. He also said he would testify before the Jan. 6 House Committee. He finally refused a subpoena.
If DJT wants to give part of the closing arguments that would require Judge Engoron’s approval. Engoron knows the risks for DJT. He would be giving up his attorney-client privilege and would be subject to cross examination. The judge doesn’t want that circus to play out in his courtroom because it would be a disaster for DJT. So it’s doubtful Engoron will approve DJT’s request. Given that outcome we can predict what DJT will say. He will loudly proclaim he was deprived of a “fair trial”…”The Judge is against me!”…”He hates me!”. Facts don’t matter to DJT. He will grift off his supporters for more money and claim in campaign ads the legal system is “rigged” against him.
If there are any sane attorneys left on DJT’s team they will tell DJT he should not participate in closing arguments. The legal risks are too high. Stay tuned to see what happens tomorrow!
Trump giving closing arguments would require Ergron’s approval – and Ergron would be required to grant that.
Absent finding Trump incompetent to stand Trial – all of us have the right to represent ourselves whether that is wise or not.
As to the Ergron trial – it is a dead letter regardless, While it is an open question how Egron will decide – the evidence presented was damning – to Leticia James case and to Ergron’s bogus predetermination of the case.
I have no idea whether ERgron will continue to behave stupidly and Slam Trump – vastly increasing the speed at which he is overturned and giving Trump another 2% in the polls, or whther Ergron will opt to try to temper his rulling – because the trial proves there is no Fraud, and that he and James are just Aholes.
Regardless, there is no outcome possible that will actually harm Trump. Though Ergron and James have harmed themselves.
Does Trump present closing arguments ? I doubt it. It is entirely possible that is just a gambit to piss off ergron and left wing nuts like yourself.
Oh, My God, Trump might be allowed to speak !!! The sky is falling.
The same may have been true of other Trump moves to speak or testify.
Regardless, the case is over and the left has lost – regardless of Ergrons likely short lived decision.
And separately James and NYC have sent a loud and clear message – Do not piss of the powers that be in NYC.
New York is Closed to Business.
John Say: Well, yet again, I was right. Judge Engoron initially granted DJT’s request to give part of the closing arguments in his case with conditions–DJT had to confine his remarks to “commentary on the relevant, material facts that were in evidence, and application of the relevant law and those facts”. DJT would not be permitted to introduce new evidence or “deliver a campaign speech”. DJT’s lawyers complained those limitations were “very unfair”. Not really. In closing arguments you can only discuss the facts in evidence and the applicable law. So when DJT’s lawyers did not respond to the offer by noon today Judge Engoron rescinded it.
Now you say “there is no outcome possible that will actually harm Trump”. Maybe not in the polls but what Judge Engoron is going to do to DJT’s real estate empire is really going to be “harmful”. DJT is going to be forced to disgorge as much as $370 million (the amount requested by Letitia James), take away his right to do business in NY, among other things. DJT’s real estate empire will be unraveled. Of course, DJT will appeal but I seriously doubt Judge Engoron decision will be overturned.
I can’t wait for Engoron’s (can’t you finally spell his name right?) final decision when you will be forced to print a retraction right here on this blog!
You were right how ? There are specific legal rules for what can and can not be in closing arguments – and Ergron has no power to change those.
He can say yes to Trump presenting his close.
He can say no, and create another apeal issue.
He can say yes, but you must conform to the rules that any other attorney would be required to meet.
But Ergron can not create Trump specific Rules – You left wing nuts are fixated on the 14th amendment today – read the WHOLE thing, Trump is entitled to the “equal protection of the law”.
The nipple judge is not entitled to impose special rules for Trump.
John Say: Do you know it’s illegal to advertise as an attorney without having a license to practice law? Your endless comments about legal issues you nothing about is on full display on this blog!
“Now you say “there is no outcome possible that will actually harm Trump”. Maybe not in the polls but what Judge Engoron is going to do to DJT’s real estate empire is really going to be “harmful””
No it is not. the Nipple judge – did I spell his name right this time ? Is going to be overturned the only question is how far the appeals will have to go first. The appeals courts have already telgraphed this – they granted a TRO blocking the Judge nipples appointed from acting despite the court kicking this to her already. TRO’s are only granted when lots of condictions are met – one of which is a high probability of winning on appeal.
There are so many problems with this case.
James is litertally on the wrong side of the takings clause in the 5th amendment.
It is not even likely that NY appeals courts uphold nipples – because businesses would flee NY.
The nipple judge has already lost – regardless of his decision.
You claim that his NY business empire will be confiscated ? First – little chance. A decision like that that was NOT overturned on appeal would devastate NY. No one is going to want to do business in NY if pissing off a prosecutor could result in the confiscation of their assets. So that is your first HUGE problem – that is that if you win you lose.
Next, Presume you are correct – you have already made a martyr olf Trump, you would be playing into his hands.
I am sure Trump does not wish to lose 377m, but that is about what he lost in the 4 years as president.
And you do not seem to grasp how much doing so would shock people – Not MAGA people, but ordinary people.
You do not seem to grasp that Trump has gone up 6-10pts in the polls – nut because of ultra MAGA voters who would Vote for him if he shot someone in Times Square. But because YOU are slowly making yourselves less appealing to independents and centrist democrats.
Hint – Do not call others fascist while behaving like a fascist.
So your Best case scenario – Trump loses all the way to SCOTUS, is still a Trump win and a loss for you.
There was an interesting book you should read that was popular when I was in High School. I believe it was called “the devils advocate”. The protagonist was a freedom fighter against a tyrannical regime. But early in the story he cut ties and joined the regime. He rapidly became the most ruthless member of the regime. Acting as egregiously as possible.
When an actual revolution finally took place, it turned out, he had never abandoned the cause of freedom, He realized the fastest route to get people to revolt was to push the regime to double down on tyranny.
We are seeing that now with the left.
Biden’s Reichstag speeches are failing. The “get Trump” nonsense is failing. Why ? Because you have made Trump Public enemy number one, You have ruthlessly and lawlessly pursued him. But you have fallen far short of making the case that Trump actually is public enemy number one.
Trump is absolutely a Threat to the power of the left. Pretty much all of us get that.
But he is not a threat tot he country.
The James case is the perfect example. The social contract, the duty and justification for the existence of the state is to protect people from the actual harm done to them by others. But James case failed to produce evidence of harm to anyone.
People do not understand the minutia of the law. But they do understand that where there is no harm there is no crime.
“I can’t wait for Engoron’s (can’t you finally spell his name right?) final decision when you will be forced to print a retraction right here on this blog!”
Why would I retract anything ? Nipples has already decided guilt. That ship has sailed. all we are waiting for is damages.
I have no idea what Nipples is going to do. My guess is that his ego is too tied to this and he has allowed Trump to get under his skin so he is going to slam Trump – and then lose on appeal. But if he had the slightest hope of salvaging some of his reputation he would find little or no damages. Though I doubt that will happen.
Regardless, in all cases Trump wins.
That is what happens when you drown int he rule of man, not law. That is what happens when you allow personal hatred to overcome the law, facts, logic and reason.
As I beleive you noted – Trump has been transfering assets out of NY. The Apellate courts shutdown the judge trying to stop that.
Trump with certainty will be leaving NY ASAP. He should have done so before.
The outstanding questions are:
How much of his NY assets will he manage to take with him.
How Badly has James damaged NY.
And how much stronger will the backlash against the left wing nonsense get.
Trump is going to lose before this pannel – that is a foregone conclusion. The question is going to be the basis for their decision.
Regardless there was some glimmer that the justices had a tiny grasp of what was going on when they asked the DOJ what the limit on the ability of a president to go after prior presidents was – particularly when they were current candidates ?
Whether you like it or not there is a very real issue here.
Turley recently spoke on this, and while he too beleives Trump will lose in DC, and thinks some of Trump’s arguments are too broad,
As an example Turley said he though the impeach first argument was unlikely to prevail. Personally I think that is an excellent standard.
Anything a president does that is egregious enough to warrant criminal prosecutions should be able to get half the house and 2/3 of the senate to QUICKLY act on.
Further that is the standard already in place for Judges and resting on the exact same clauses in the constitution.
I would note that directly addresses the “seal team 6” nonsense. Presidential immunity does NOT mean president can do any illegal act they wish. It means that BEFORE a criminal prosecution can take place, the house and Senate have to conclude there is no constitutional justification for the alleged act.
Could a president direct Seal Team 6 to take out a rival ?
Are you saying there is no circumstance that would be acceptable ?
What if the rival was threatening to release a deadly bio weapon ?
If we are going to test the limits – lets actually test them.
A president that directed seal team 6 to assassinate a political rival
would face the following issues:
Absent a clear justification for doing so, Everyone in the administration from the VP and Sec Def down to the commander of Seal Team 6 would hopefully refuse to carry out an unlawful order. I know that you are clueless, but both in the US and in international law – just following orders does not work. But presuming that the president could provide sufficient basis to have the order to take out a political rival executed,
Congress would then be free to impeach and remove, which absent a strong justification they could do quickly.
The debate here about Presidential immunity is absurd.
These judges are not actually deciding whether presidential immunity exists, or whether it is broad.
Only whether the Biden administration can game it in the instance of Trump.
Lets say that the courts – including SCOTUS side with the Biden admin – aside from the vast power to threaten the president this would enable, it would also push future presidents to pardon themselves for anything and everything on the way out the door.
The DOJ is not really arguing that presidents do not have immunity.
They are arguing that there is a loophole in presidential immunity that allows them to “get Trump” without the required due process.
Jonathan: Funny how contradictions work. You say there is no evidence Mayorkas has committed “high crimes and misdemeanors”—because he may be a “bad person” but he has not committed an impeachable offense. The MAGA House Republicans are out for vengeance, engaging in tit for tat. “You impeached our president so we are going to do the same to one of yours”. That’s all the this Mayorkas case is about.
The problem for your position is that you continue to claim Biden is, in effect, a “bad person”. You have claimed in many, many columns that the “Biden crime family” has engaged in influence peddling and other corrupt acts–the “most corrupt family in the history of the country”. And that warrants impeachment.
Despite a year of investigation Jim Comer has yet to find evidence that Joe Biden has committed “high crimes and misdemeanors”–the gold standard for impeachment. Repayments for car and other loans among family members when Biden was out of office, or Hunter’s sale of his paintings, don’t qualify. So using your own standard for impeachment how can you continue to claim Joe Biden deserves to be impeached? That’s the funny thing about how contradictions work and you column is filled with them!
We agree on the first part that as bad as Mayorkas may be performing we don’t impeach for maladministration.
Then you run off the rails repeating tired Democrat talking points.
You are wrong in so many points but let’s look at the easiest to demolish. There are documents, sworn testimony, and records of actions taken by both the Ukrainians and the Bidens. There are articles of incorporation of LLCs.
All of these things are evidence. All statements under oath are evidence whether you like it or not. What there is not yet is proof and that is why we need to examine the evidence procure corroboration or exculpatory evidence to determine what if anything was proven.
You clearly lack the knowledge of the subject or the honesty required to make the statements you have.
Mayorkas will be impeached for lying, incompetence, failure to enforce the law. That is all self evident to the entire country.
Is that an impeachable offense ? Not 4 years ago. But Democrats changed the standard. Trump and republicans lost that argument – now it is Democrats turn to suffer from their own success.
Garland is Next.
The case AGAINST the impeachment. I really did not read this article. But I do agree with Jonathan. Impeachment is way below the punishment this anti-human, America-hater deserves. So, yeah…no need to impeach.
@Turley
Bad but not guilty because he’s just following orders?
C’mon. Really?
Can you say its a dereliction of duty?
I saw a humorous commercial on TV the other day, wherein every statement by the father is responded to (by young daughter) with, “But why?” Finally exasperated, they both call out for mother.
I do not waste my time on whether mayorkas will be impeached. Rather, I waste my time on repeatedly asking myself WHY Mayorkas seems so eager to create a PERMEABLE BORDER?”
But why??”
– Is it to please his boss Biden and secure a second-term job?
-Is it to win favor with Democrats?
-Is it to contribute substantively to the dilution of America’s majority-White (Caucasian) population?
-Is it to win favor with an immigrant population, who will praise him and Biden as heroes?
-Is it to insure the creation of FDA (Future Democrats of America) (immigrants)?
Because, certainly and almost unequivocally, it is NOT to “rescue” these seemingly well-nourished (several even overweight), well-dressed (complete with designer sunglasses, name-brand clothes), well-physically fit (crossing the water requires some fitness), and well-justified (coached by numerous legal aides and Social Justice warriors on what to say when questioned, and how to shed tears when needed) individuals–from any horrible persecution in their homeland……
(I do not mind immigration; I DO mind illegal immigration and the thumbing of noses at a sovereign’s ability to control its borders.)
Lin,
Good questions.
I think it may be that the past immigrants are no longer supporters of the Democrat party. They went and did all the things required of them to become legal immigrants. They see this illegal immigration as a cheat. They also see the illegals as looking for or expecting a hand out. The Free Press had a great article about how a man who came to this country, worked hard, obeyed our laws but resents these new immigrants as they dont want to work and expect hand outs.
Upstate: Good response.
I believe a diverse population is a good thing, bringing in persons who can truly appreciate our blessings and work toward their continuation. But what is that old saying about giving a man a fish vs. teaching him how to fish?
(I personally believe that the real reason is geo-political – a possibility that the U.S. (after the 1960s Cuba scare/mess) wants to create a strong, CONTINENTAL, united superpower (North America) (much as China seems to pursue its own dominance/expansion), by eventually merging and/or eliminating national boundaries in favor of greater continental power/spread.
But I do not believe the way to create such a vision is to throw accelerant on the flames of “gimme gimme” and degrade/discredit/defy current law and principles of sovereignty upon which we stand. Unfortunately, an envisioned political superpower might look and operate more like China than it would the vision of our founders.)
(Remember the old “London Bridge” game we played in kindergarten? “And we all fall down.”)
Lin,
Great comment.
Both sets of my grandparents came to this country legally.
They were still proud of their heritage and culture, but the were very proud to be Americas. They worked hard, paid their taxes, did not take hand outs they were too proud to do that.
((and I can readily see/infer that (your story, above) by the mature and thoughtful comments you contribute to this blog.))
Lin, I doubt that is the motive. I see no desire in this administration to rule over a united North America. More likely are:
1. Expand the state by increasing the number of dependents;
2. Increase the number of future Democratic voters, especially in Texas; and
3. Ensure cheap menial labour.
In addition, there is the virtue signalling of “social justice” which motivates some of the progressives.
Daniel: I actually agree with most of your comment. And I also believe that there is a concerted effort by this administration to be the “Big Tent” welcomer for reasons other than specious sympathetic altruism for migrants. Perhaps your reasons are the “means” to reach the real end, rather than the individual end each and of itself purports to achieve. That is to say, ergo, the real (collective) “end” is the creation of a geo-political superpower impervious to outside influence.
And like what Harry Reed did that cam back to bite the Dems in the backside, this will open up a Republican administration to having its cabinet members impeached. As much as I hate to say it, the professor is right.
The illegal immigrant problem can never be fixed as long as 3rd World economies are that close to U.S. orders. Until you remove the financial incentive, no fence or wall can keep them out.
That’s why native Canadians aren’t climbing fences to get into the U.S. Both nations have near equal incomes and living standards. There are reports of immigrants from Mexico and beyond flying to Canada to cross into the U.S. from the less fortified northern border.
If Canada paid 10 times the paycheck/benefits for the same job in the USA, Trumpers would be climbing fences trying to get into Canada. They’d work in Canada and send the money back to their families in the USA.
The goal should be raising living and work standards in Central and South America – removing the financial incentive and improving those foreign governments.
Economic comparison is not one of the requisite factors to qualify for legal immigrant/migrant application for asylum, –let alone illegal immigration.
(8 U.S.C. § 1101)
(8 U.S.C. § 1158)
S/he didn’t say it’s a requisite. S/he noted that it’s a driver.
Anonymous: Not an excuse for the specious “driver.”
Do you remember the old story/parable about giving a man a fish vs. teaching him how to fish (in his own country?)
We’re not teaching them how to fish in their own countries either.
(and I agree with your (blue anonymous) last paragraph about raising the standards to the south of us. That is not contrary to what I said.)
@Anon,
Wrong.
The wall is just the first step. A visible barrier.
They will still come, albeit in fewer numbers.
Jail, labor camps, etc … and send them back. (Yes, I know how labor camps sound. But you get it. If you don’t send them back or they keep coming, how do you deter them? )
Labor camps to recoup some of the costs and to give them a chance to think about it.
They come across again… its worse.
Those who violate the I-9 law and hire illegals… they get hit too. Fines, IRS audits, etc …
It won’t stop it… but it will put a major dent in to it.
Then get Congress to pass a birthright citizenship law that states that birthright citizenship can only be granted if parents / mother here legally.
(Think about that for a second… visa holders, green card holders, will still have the right… even tourists who don’t need visas who came here legally too. )
-G
This clown took an oath. And he’s in charge of Homeland Security. Homeland Security would include protecting our border. Enough said. Impeach this lying cockroach. Do your job Congress.