House Republicans finally decided they’re not too busy to begin working on the easiest thing they can possibly do, which is impeaching the hopelessly feckless and extremely bizarre looking Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. But two articles on the subject make the same interesting claim.
That is: That it’s somehow not possible or that it would perhaps even be unconstitutional.
Here’s from Democrat lawyers Norman Eisen and Joshua Matz in the Washington Post on Sunday:
House Republicans appear poised to rush through a partisan impeachment of Alejandro Mayorkas, the secretary of Homeland Security. They do not allege corrupt, abusive or criminal conduct; they accuse him merely of poor judgment, believing he could better use his legal authority and enforcement discretion to safeguard the southern border.
Whatever the wisdom of Mayorkas’s policy decisions, the claim that he should be impeached is indefensible as a matter of constitutional law.
And of slightly more interest, here’s from the usually sane, considered impartial lawyer Jonathan Turley, who Republicans often rely on when it comes to matters of impeachment, in the Daily Beast on Monday:
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.
Both pieces make what I’ll assume are genuine, honest legal arguments on the merits of impeachment and what the framers intended for its use, but here are two points that render those cases obsolete…
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Yeah, Ok... to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.