Rep. Goldman: My Republican colleagues are wasting the Senate’s time

Articles of impeachment against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas fail to allege an impeachable offense.

The overriding point is that the dem controlled Senate is NOT going to convict Mayorkas, so the House's effort is a complete waste of time, not to mention wasting the taxpayers dime as well.

This impeachment is pure hypocrisy; this is the same Republican house that refused to put on the floor for a vote one of the most strongest border bills ever to come out of the senate, which was led by, an negotiation by, Sen. Lankford, a Republican.

Republicans incessantly argue, and it's a bogus argument: "You already have laws on the books, all you have to do is enforce them".

You can enforce all day long, and they are doing just that at the border, but the numbers are overwhelming, so the real solution is to allocate more resources, which the border bill will do, but Republican do not understand this.

I live near the border and go into Mexico every now and then. The last time I was there, about a year ago my girlfriend and I went down to TJ to do some shopping, I approached a few border guys, and I put the question to them, 'Republicans say you guys aren't enforcing the laws, so I must ask you, are you enforcing the laws?', and he looked flustered, frustrated, and politely said, 'of course we are, we just need more of everything to handle the huge influx'. In other words, it's a resource problem, not an enforcement problem.

I also asked him, 'what would happen if they closed the border?" He countered it with a question,"What would happen if you plugged up your butthole?" Good point. **** would pile up. Now, he wasn't saying what was crossing was fecal matter, he was just saying it would be hell on the system, a solution worse than the problem itself. There are some $3 billion worth of durable goods that must cross the border every day, there are thousands of San Diegans who live in Mexico and work in San Diego, who must cross the border, there were thousands of people like me who just want to go into Mexico for one reason or the other, and in the mix, are a those trying to sneak across, and there are those concealing contraband of one kind or another, fentanyl being the big problem. Thousand upon Thousands of Mexicans cross the border who live in Chula Vista and San Diego who cross the border because they have relatives in Mexico, they come to visit who are legal, have passports, etc., etc., etc. The point is, you cannot merely 'close the border', doing that would be disaster for both sides. They need more resources to deal with the cheaters, the trucks with contraband, the asylum seekers, the drugs, etc. It's easy to cross the border into Mexico, but coming back takes a couple of hours.

As a matter of fact, I recall that they shut down the border once in 2018 (We had a Republican Mayor in San Diego) and the result was a disaster, and they had to open it back up the next day. THIS IS NOT THE SOLUTION folks. It can be done, but only for short periods.

https://www.eastcountymagazine.org/...sidro-tear-gasses-migrants-including-children (article published in 2018 during Trump)

Congressman Juan Vargas (D-San Diego) has issued a statement criticizing Trump. “Today’s unprecedented demonstration at the San Ysidro Port of Entry is a direct result of President Trump’s failed leadership. His complete disregard for human rights, international law, and immigration law threatens the safety of federal officers and the millions of people that pass through the border region," Vargas says. "The President continues to address a complex global issue with an offensive simplicity that makes the United States appear callous and xenophobic to our neighbors and allies."

Vargas adds, "The President and the Republican controlled House and Senate have had two years to pass immigration reform and improve our asylum process. Sadly, they have failed to take any productive action. Now more than ever, our country needs bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform. Comprehensive immigration reform will improve border security while treating immigrants with human decency.”

"Comprehensive Border Reform" Vargas said, well, finally now the Senate has it, but Republicans won't put it to the floor for a vote. Why? Because Trump wants it as a campaign issue. Hell, they didn't pass it during Trump's presidency, what makes you believe he's going to do it if he is elected?

"This is a pro Putin Republican party" --- Rep Dan Goldman, on the Morning Joe show.

In his opinion piece (below), Rep. Dan Goldman criticizes House Republicans for pushing to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas on weak grounds, diverting attention from pressing issues like international crises. Goldman argues that the charges lack merit and are politically motivated. He calls for the Senate to dismiss the articles of impeachment and focus on important legislative work instead of wasting time on partisan maneuvers, not to mention the articles of impeachment cannot name any 'high crimes and misdemeanors'. You don't dilute the constitutions impeachment clause over policy and management issues, you do it for high crimes and misdemeanors, and there aren't any for Mayorkas. Republicans are cheapening the impeachment clause. They can't impeach Joe Biden, so they pick on Mayorkas, when, in fact, Republicans are the problem.

The Bipartisan Border Bill contains:

• Hundreds of more border agents
• Thousands of more asylum officers
• More detention beds
• More immigration judges
• More inspection machines to detect fentanyl.

Salient points of the article:

• Global attacks on democracy: Iran launched missile and drone attacks on Israel, and Russia used Iranian-designed drones in Ukraine.
• Domestic political situation: Former President Donald Trump went to trial as a criminal defendant, a first for a former U.S. president.
• Controversial impeachment trial: House Republicans initiated impeachment proceedings against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas over allegations regarding his handling of immigration laws.
• Historical context: This is the first impeachment trial of a Cabinet secretary in about 150 years, with previous Cabinet impeachments involving allegations of bribery.
• Charges against Mayorkas: Accused of failing to comply with immigration laws that are reportedly impossible to fully enforce due to limited resources. No legal finding by any court, including the Supreme Court, supports these charges.
• Political implications: The impeachment is viewed as a politicization of the impeachment clause, potentially setting a precedent for impeaching other Cabinet members based on policy disagreements.
• Irony in actions: While Republicans pursued impeachment, Secretary Mayorkas was actively engaged in bipartisan negotiations to address border issues.
• Outcome of impeachment vote: Initial failure of impeachment articles due to bipartisan opposition, followed by a successful vote after additional Republican support.
• Senate's role emphasized: The responsibility of conviction or acquittal lies with the Senate, which is urged to dismiss the impeachment to focus on legislative priorities.
• Call for constitutional fidelity: Emphasizes the importance of dismissing baseless charges to uphold the Constitution and avoid wasting time on partisan political maneuvers.

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc...achment-senate-goldman-immigration-rcna147893

There is no crime or misdemeanor, much less a high crime or misdemeanor to warrant impeachment.

Democracy is under attack at home and abroad. On Saturday, the antidemocratic regime in Iran launched more than 300 missiles and drones at our democratic ally, Israel, while Russia simultaneously sent the same Iranian-designed drones into Ukraine. On Monday, Donald Trump became the first former president to go to trial as a criminal defendant.

Yet on Tuesday, House Republicans determined that the best use of the Senate’s time at this moment of international crisis is to hold a trial for the impeachment of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas on legally-deficient, fact-free and constitutionally baseless allegations of violating his oath of office. The Senate should dismiss these farcical, partisan charges immediately to preserve our Constitution, protect our democracy and focus on the important legislative work that Congress must do.

 

Didn;t stop you all from repeatedly trying to impeach trump over a variety of silliness even knowing full well that a Republican Senate was almost certainly going to inform you that pounding sand was a better use of your time.
And the crime is dereliction of duty in regard to enforcing border laws

 

There are many dead women and dead and raped children thanks to Mayorkas. This guy needs way more punishment than impeachment. He should be charged with involuntary manslaughter

 

There were real high crimes and misdemeanors in each of the Trump impeachments, just read vol II of the Mueller report. and then there was the crimes associated with jan 6, crimes abound. The ONLY reason a Repub controlled senate didn't convict was that they were cowards, they were afraid of Trump's wrath, his base, his mean tweets, death threats from the base, etc. But dems are not, we are indicting him and are going to put his arse in jail, where he belongs. Repubs in the senate are cowards. Oh, they had courage back in Nixon's day, but no longer. Hell, if they had convicted him on the impeachments, we wouldn't be having to deal with Trump, today. It seems that Republicans are always the problem.

There are NO 'high crimes and misdemeanors' in the Mayorkas impeachments.

A detail which apparently is lost on you.

 

Failure to follow and enforce immigration law as written is a crime. And there were nothing in the way of either High crimes or misdemeanors in the Trump impeach since trying to kick over the Dem's Ukrainian piggy bank is neither.

 

Clearly you didn't read the OP,. because have failed to rebut it's salient point.

Thanks to Republicans, for not passing one of the best border bills in history. The entire Repub house should resign and let more responsible people take seats. As I pointed out in the OP, the issue is resources, not 'enforcement'.

As for dead people, you didn't complain when Trump's incompetence on covid caused the death trajectory to accelerate faster than it would have but for his incompetence. Your fake outrage noted.

 

That point is squashed in the OP, clearly you didn't read it because you have failed to rebut it.

Making Putin smile should be a crime, and Repubs are doing that in spades.

Once again, clearly you didn't read the OP because your point is squashed in the OP and you failed to rebut it.

Read the OP, and rebut it's points. Don't just regurgitate Repub talking points.

 

I did actually call out his sub par handling of covid on several occasions on here but thanks for assuming things about me without researching first. No worries, I don't expect better from the left. Their MO is insult first and ignore all facts.

 

Actually it was called essentially racist and ignored.

 

They were not going to convict Trump either, but the democrats still did it twice. Wasn't that just as much a waste of time and money?

 

You're making typical arguments on the right, so when I say 'you', I mean 'y'all on the right' as we are often arguing right v left arguments, are we not?

Don't take the 'you' personally when the debate is right v left arguments, that's what I'm saying.

 

Funn Trump had it down to less in a month than the Biden administration lets in in a week and it was trending downward, It isn't at lack of money that is the issue it is a lack of will.

 

So first, @Patricio Da Silva , the "most significant border bill" in history was nothing of the sort.
It was mislabeled and should have been called the "pay off Ukraine so they'll pay off the big guy" bill.
If you want to debate the points of that sorry piece of legislation I'll be glad to oblige.

The fact is, every president in modern times has done a much, MUCH better job of securing the border, using the same laws and same budget and same manpower that the biden administration has.
Overwhelming numbers? Why, all of a sudden? Has anyone seriously answered that question?
No.
Because the answer is, from day one brandon put out a welcome mat at our borders.
That's why. He literally said, come now, come fast, the border is open for you. But hurry.

Second, no everyone knows Mayorkas isn't going to be found guilty in the Senate. That was forgone from the beginning.
In my opinion this is little more than a payback for two stupid, made up impeachments of trump.
If you want to debate the points of the impeachments, I will gladly accommodate you.
The fact is, neither Trump impeachment was going to succeed, it was a political stunt.
Nothing more, and nothing less.
Really. Who does the souvenir pen thingy, like they were signing the Magna Carta?
Nancy Antoinette, that's who.


The point however is salient;
Mayorkas has one job to do;
Secure the United States.
And he's failed.
And he's lied to Congress and the American people about it.
And he's even worked against securing our borders.
Impeachment is appropriate.
It will fail, because the democrats will never convict one of their own, no matter how bad the charges are.
But it's appropriate, it's justice, it's karma.

 

And you guys didn’t complain when Biden let hundreds of thousands of untested and unvaxxed illegals into this country and flew them to red states on midnight flights.

HR2 is a strong and bipartisan border bill, why is Schumer sitting on it?

 

Like I said last week, the news in El Paso is that the number of dead bodies of men, women and children found at the border broke a record and we’re only four months into the year.

 

Name one president who has 'secured the border'?

I'll be waiting,


But, I recall Trump trying to 'secure the border' in 2018', here's what happened:


https://www.eastcountymagazine.org/...sidro-tear-gasses-migrants-including-children (article published in 2018 during Trump)

Congressman Juan Vargas (D-San Diego) has issued a statement criticizing Trump. “Today’s unprecedented demonstration at the San Ysidro Port of Entry is a direct result of President Trump’s failed leadership. His complete disregard for human rights, international law, and immigration law threatens the safety of federal officers and the millions of people that pass through the border region," Vargas says. "The President continues to address a complex global issue with an offensive simplicity that makes the United States appear callous and xenophobic to our neighbors and allies."

Vargas adds, "The President and the Republican controlled House and Senate have had two years to pass immigration reform and improve our asylum process. Sadly, they have failed to take any productive action. Now more than ever, our country needs bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform. Comprehensive immigration reform will improve border security while treating immigrants with human decency.

 

Look at the left who are defending a guy who wouldn't even defend his own agents when he accused them of whipping illegals. Oh, and that was also probably Trump's fault.

 

High Crimes and Misdemeanors basically means abuse of power or violation of public trust for personal gain. For example, if a President abused power to.... I dunno... attempt to pressure a foreign leader to find dirt on their opponent, the personal gain would be he gets more votes. Or if a President used his power to incite a mob of followers to attempt to impede the ratification of their successor, the personal gain being they stay in power. Things like that.

What was Mayorkas' personal gain?

 

If you can counter Copilot's rebuttal to your claim, feel free to so, but since I couldn't do a better job, I'm using it's critique:

You’ve raised concerns about the Biden administration’s migrant program, and it’s essential to clarify some misconceptions. Let’s break down the key points:

1. The Program’s Purpose and Scale:
   
   • The Biden administration did indeed fly migrants directly into the U.S. between January and December 2023. However, this program was not secret; it has been publicly known.
   • The claim that these migrants were “untested and unvaxxed” is misleading. Participation in the program requires significant vetting and sponsorship by a U.S. citizen. It does not transport unvetted aliens.
2. National Security and Vetting:
   
   • Contrary to the assertion that the program posed a national-security risk, there is no evidence to support this claim. The program adheres to strict vetting procedures.
   • The government’s argument in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) was misinterpreted. The program does not compromise security.
3. Impact on Voter Demographics:
   
   • Some argue that such a program could alter voter demographics. However, the program does not provide a pathway to citizenship. Therefore, it does not directly impact voter eligibility.

In summary, while the program exists, it is essential to base our discussions on accurate information. The Biden administration’s approach to immigration is complex, and we should engage in informed debates rather than perpetuating misconceptions

He's publicly stated why, why not google it?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...-next-for-bipartisan-negotiations/ar-BB1hcgDB

However, the Senate released Sen. Lankford's bill, and there the argument sits. Copilot makes a comparison:


Both the Secure the Border Act of 2023 (H.R.2) and Senator James Lankford’s border security package propose significant measures related to border security, but they have different emphases. Let’s compare their strengths:

1. H.R.2 (House Version):
   
   • Comprehensive Approach: H.R.2 addresses various aspects of border security, including funding for the border wall, technology enhancements, and employment verification.
   • Asylum Reforms: It introduces changes to asylum laws, such as fast screenings, limited appeals, and expedited deportation processes.
   • Detention and Deportation: H.R.2 aims to shift from “catch and release” to “detain and deport.”
   • Bipartisan Support: It passed the House with bipartisan backing, indicating broad consensus on its provisions.
2. Lankford’s Border Security Package:
   
   • Focused Measures: Senator Lankford’s bill specifically targets key challenges:
     • Parole Reform: Ending parole abuse on the southwest border.
     • Asylum Reforms: Stricter standards for asylum eligibility.
     • Emergency Authorities: Granting powers to address border crises.
     • Shift in Approach: Prioritizing detainment and deportation.
   • Strong Stance: Lankford’s bill takes a robust stance on border security, emphasizing practical solutions.
3. Comparison:
   
   • H.R.2 covers a broader range of issues, while Lankford’s bill hones in on critical areas.
   • Strength depends on priorities: H.R.2’s comprehensive approach vs. Lankford’s targeted reforms.
   • Context Matters: The severity of the border situation and political dynamics influence which approach is more effective.

In summary, both bills contribute to the ongoing dialogue on border security, but their strengths lie in different aspects.

 

Accessory before the fact should work as well.

 

Why do he and Joe seem to thing that increasing importation of illegal immigrants including over 600k known felons at previously unheard of levels is a good idea.

 

As previously pointed out Lankford's bill is garbage it does nothing to control illegal immigration and much to make it worse. On top of which it contains funding for the various NGOs that are causing the problem

 

Just high crimes and misdemeanors of the people they are letting in (100% UNVETTED) (nice way around that though, 2 thumbs up)

 

@garyd

I'm really sick of Republicans and you guys on the right making this really od, very tired, trope, which has been debunked so so so many times.

Okay, one more time, I'll explain it to you, your claim is bunk. In fact, illegal immigrants, as a group, commit fewer crimes than American citizens.

And it makes sense, they don't want to get deported, to they try extra hard not to attract attention.

The point is, some who cross, legally or otherwise, like in any segment of society, there are going to be some crimes. Focusing on one, or two, are even a few, is ANECDOTAL and not 'proof' of wrongdoing, and sure as hell is not in any ballpark remotely in the proximity of 'high crimes and misdemeanors.

Find another argument, because that one ain't it.

 

Never try and beat the right with math, you will lose every time.
Its seems to be to be very dishonest to present the info that way. Of course there's a smaller percentage of crimes from them, THERE ARE LESS OF THEM, but you are missing the most important part, they didn't HAVE to be let in. We can at least control THOSE criminals. I believe that point is either lost on you or you WILLINGLY just chose to 100% ignore it. I got news for you, MATH matters!