Dem
51
GOP
49
Shortly after the Fani Willis story effectively collapsed, House Republicans gave the right-wing punditry something else to do some foaming at the mouth about. Undoubtedly, everyone is relieved that Sean Hannity, et al., will have plenty of material for tonight's shows after all. What's the "good" news? The House Homeland Security Committee voted, along party lines naturally, to recommend the impeachment of DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas to the full House.
We must be honest: This does not really feel like "news," according to our Spidey-sense. Of course the committee was going to vote for impeachment, and of course they were going to do it along party lines, and of course they were going to move quickly. After all, there is much need for a distraction, given that Republicans are currently actively sabotaging the border security deal being negotiated by one of their own (i.e., Sen. James Lankford, R-OK). What we are saying is that we might not have written this item, except that every major outlet, from Fox to The New York Times, announced it as major breaking news. When that's the case, we wonder if our judgment was in error, and we get to writing.
Since we are writing this up, it is worth noting that this impeachment "process" has been an affront to the normal order for these things. Normally, the initial decision in an impeachment case is made by the House Judiciary Committee, not by Homeland Security. Further, since launching their inquiry into Mayorkas, the Committee has held a grand total of two hearings, and has not arranged for the Secretary to testify. This does not exactly scream "rigorous."
It is also worth noting that the case for impeachment is thinner than the neckties of the 1980s. Remember, it is not enough for an official to be incompetent (not that we are saying this describes Mayorkas). No, to be impeached and removed, that official has to commit high crimes and misdemeanors. Other than partisan actors in the House, nobody seems to be convinced that Mayorkas came within a country mile of clearing this bar.
For example, Ross Garber, a conservative legal scholar, told CNN that "At least as framed right now, the charges don't rise to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor." Former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff, who served under George W. Bush, wrote an op-ed headlined "Don't Impeach Alejandro Mayorkas," with the subhead "House Republicans are misusing the process to target an official who has done nothing wrong." Jonathan Turley, the law professor who is typically happy to tote Republican water, wrote: "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."
Nearly every article on this subject also notes, quite correctly, that Cabinet officers so rarely commit impeachable offenses that only one of them has actually been impeached. That would be Secretary of War William W. Belknap, who served under Ulysses S. Grant and who was almost certainly on the take. He resigned before he could be tried by the Senate, and then was acquitted anyhow. Over the years, there have been around 1,000 cabinet secretaries. An impeachment rate of 0.1%, and a conviction rate of 0.0%, speaks to how irregular the current proceeding is.
Of course, the rubber really hits the road, and this really becomes news (in our view), when Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) brings the articles of impeachment to the floor of the House for a vote. He says he plans to do so with all due haste, and we have no reason to doubt him (see: distraction). On that day, either Johnson and his friends on the Homeland Security Committee will end up with egg on their faces, or else a number of GOP members (e.g., the Biden 17) will cast votes that could very well come back to haunt them in November. We freely admit we have no idea which will come to pass. (Z)