Mayorkas Impeachment Dismissed

TL;DR: A slightly more analytical edition today. Take 5 minutes and read in its entirety. If someone is deserving of clear and concise summaries of yesterday’s Political News, share using the link below.

 SHARE WITH A FRIEND BY SENDING THIS LINK

Senate Democrats Vote to Dismiss Impeachment Charges Against Secretary Mayorkas

Below is the reaction of Republican Senators. After the trial had been dismissed, Republican Senators remained in the Chambers for 3 hours discussing their disgust with the decision. Watch Here

Historic Decision

In a historic and controversial move, Senate Democrats voted to dismiss impeachment charges against Secretary Mayorkas, avoiding a full trial. This is the first time in the Senate’s entire history that Articles of Impeachment have been dismissed under these circumstances.

Why this is Important

The primary role of Congress includes oversight of the executive branch to ensure that laws are faithfully executed and that executive power is not abused. By dismissing the impeachment without a full trial, there is a concern that Congress may be abdicating its responsibility to hold high-ranking officials accountable. This could weaken the checks and balances that are fundamental to the U.S. constitutional framework, and set a dangerous precedent for the future.

Why did this happen?

Democrat Senators POV

1. Political Theatrics: Schumer argued that the impeachment was not a serious legal or constitutional exercise but rather a political maneuver by Republicans aimed at undermining the Biden administration. He suggested that the impeachment was more about scoring political points than addressing any genuine legal misconduct.

2. Lack of Substance: From Schumer's viewpoint, the charges against Mayorkas lacked sufficient grounding in evidence that would justify a high crime or misdemeanor necessary for impeachment. He posited that the Republicans did not provide enough concrete evidence to support the severity of their claims, particularly regarding Mayorkas' handling of immigration laws and border security.

Republican Senators POV

1. Serious Legal and Ethical Concerns: Republicans contended that Mayorkas had committed serious violations of law and duty, particularly in relation to border security and immigration enforcement. They viewed the impeachment as a necessary constitutional mechanism to address what they perceived as blatant disregard for the law.

2. Duty to Uphold the Constitution: From the Republican perspective, the impeachment was about holding a high-ranking government official accountable for actions that potentially compromised national security and violated the legal and ethical standards expected of public servants. They saw their actions as upholding the Constitution and ensuring that no government official is above the law.

Why did this really happen?

One can speculate that the Democrats did not want to hold a full trial to avoid increased public attention on the crisis at the southern border. A full Impeachment Trial would have been an opportunity for Senate Republicans to present specific examples of how Secretary Mayorkas has failed at his job. With the election coming up, Democrats want to avoid any opportunity for the Republicans to point out their failures, and even worse, alleged crimes.

Think about this

Does dismissing the Impeachment without a trial undermine the American People’s worry about the border crisis?

Will the public see this decision as proof that the Democrats do not take this issue seriously?

What would hurt Democrat’s polling more?

1. Allowing a full trial where all details and alleged crimes committed by Mayorkas are laid on the table.

2. Dismissing the Impeachment altogether, calling it baseless, and taking the backlash on the accusations that they are not fulfilling their constitutional duty.

That’s for you to decide.

EXTRA

You are a Jury member

Below are two examples of alleged crimes committed by Secretary Mayorkas. First, Mayorkas is alleged to have knowingly violated immigration laws by taking advantage of the parole system. Second, it is a crime to “knowingly and willfully” conceal something from or make a false statement to Congress.

Read About the Use of Parole Under Immigration Law

Expanded Allegations of Abuse of Parole Powers

Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas has been accused of abusing his discretionary powers regarding the parole of immigrants into the United States. Typically, parole should be used “only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.” The legal framework for parole includes:

• Humanitarian Reasons: Parole may be granted to individuals who need to enter the U.S. due to urgent humanitarian reasons, such as receiving critical medical treatment unavailable in their home country.

• Significant Public Benefit: This category can include bringing individuals whose presence in the U.S. would provide substantial benefits, such as witnesses in legal proceedings or people with specialized skills.

Despite these clear guidelines, Secretary Mayorkas is alleged to have significantly expanded the use of parole beyond these confines:

Case Example Highlighted by Senator Lindsey Graham: Senator Graham highlighted an alarming case concerning the parole process under Secretary Mayorkas' direction involving the individual who later became known as Laken Riley's killer.

The legal parole file related to this individual states that the reason for parole was due to capacity issues at a detention facility.

This clearly does not fit into either of the two categories described above. This case raised significant concerns about the oversight and legitimacy of the parole decisions being made, suggesting that the discretionary power may have been used improperly or excessively.

Secretary Mayorkas' Statement on Handling Paroles: In a pivotal statement in November of 2023, Secretary Mayorkas claimed that his department handled over 240,000 cases of parole on a case-by-case basis. This statement was brought into question by the sheer volume of paroles processed, suggesting a systematic application of parole that contradicts the individual assessment requirement mandated by law. Critics argue that this approach effectively bypasses established immigration law, creating a de facto new immigration policy without the consent of Congress.

As of today, over 1,000,000 immigrants have been paroled into the United States under Secretary Mayorkas.

Do you think that these individuals were evaluated on a case-by-case basis to ensure that their parole legally fits into one of the two described categories?

Conclusion

Take the examples above - would they warrant a trial?

51 Senators did not think so.

Until next time…