Republican Representative Tom McClintock's Wimpy Arguments For Not Impeaching Mayorkas Don't Hold Water
Print Friendly and PDF

Patrick Cleburne asked at the end of his recent article “Massive NUMBERSUSA Ratings Failure On Mayorkas Impeachment Vote. Why?why Republican representatives who usually are good on immigration voted not to impeach Mayorkas.

Well, Republican Representative Tom McClintock (who gets an A from NumbersUSA, and was rated one of the "Most Anti-Immigrant Republicans Running" in 2018 by Mother Jones) attempted to defend his decision. McClintock (not a lawyer from what I could see) claimed that Mayorkas was guilty of “maladministration, neglect of duties, and malfeasance in office, but these are not impeachable offenses” [Exclusive—‘Completely Unconstitutional’: Rep. Tom McClintock Defends His Opposition to Mayorkas Impeachment, by Bradley Jaye, Breitbart, November 15, 2023]. Now, the actual clause in Article II, Section 4 reads “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

There are two crimes spelled out in that: treason and bribery. Mayorkas is likely not guilty of bribery, but what about TREASON? McClintock seems to think Mayorkas is guilty of being bad at his job, not that Mayorkas is actually purposefully dismantling the border and encouraging invasion. It is only through sheer luck that we have not had a terrorist attack on U.S. soil. His opening of the border has led to an increase in deaths due to narcotics overdoses.

I have to figure that among the 201 Republicans who did vote to impeach Mayorkas, there’s probably more than one lawyer among them, and those Republican Representatives either thought Mayorkas guilty of treason or some other high crime and misdemeanor. What about “Negligence of duty”? Can Mayorkas at the very least be charged with that?

Negligence, according to Cornell’s Legal Information Institute:

is the failure to behave with the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised under the same circumstances. Either a person’s actions or omissions of actions can be found negligent.
  • The existence of a legal duty that the defendant owed the plaintiff
  • Defendant’s breach of that duty
  • Harm to the plaintiff
  • Defendant’s actions are the proximate cause of harm to the plaintiff
  • Defendant’s actions are the cause-in-fact of harm to the plaintiff

In the case of Marjorie Taylor Greene’s two Hispanic constituents who were killed by an alien smuggler in a traffic accident, does that not qualify as being negligent?

Other pundits have previously pointed out that the Democrats are willing to use impeachment for their own purposes and make up the rules as they go along. They even tried impeaching Trump as a private citizen after he left office, for God’s sake! Yet, the Republican’ts appear to be too scared to use the same tactics, even when legitimate, that the Democrats have used whenever it suited their needs.

They tried impeaching Trump over a phone call to cover up the fact that Biden was corrupt! Isn’t it obvious now?

Ya wanna know why Democrats are unafraid to use lawfare against Republican’ts? Because Republiwimps are too scared to respond in kind and they know it.

Print Friendly and PDF