Among those who watch Congress closely, there were many who found it difficult to believe that House Republicans would move forward with plans to impeach a sitting cabinet secretary without evidence of high crimes. The GOP conference is quite radical, but it wouldn’t go this far, would it?
The answer continues to come into sharper focus. NBC News reported:
House Republicans took a significant step forward Sunday in their effort to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas by formalizing their allegations ahead of a committee vote. Republicans allege in the first impeachment article that Mayorkas displayed a “willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law,” while the second article argues that he breached public trust by having “knowingly made false statements, and knowingly obstructed lawful oversight of the Department of Homeland Security.”
The unveiling of the impeachment articles came on the heels of a “Dear Colleagues” letter from House Speaker Mike Johnson, which not only endorsed the impeachment effort, but also added that “a vote on the floor will be held as soon as possible” after the Homeland Security Committee advances the articles. That committee vote is expected Tuesday — as in tomorrow — and by all appearances, it’s likely to fall along party lines.
The Louisiana Republican’s letter also included an appeal in the third paragraph for Democrats to embrace the House GOP’s right-wing immigration bill — H.R. 2, the so-called “Secure the Border Act” — while adding in the seventh paragraph that President Joe Biden can act unilaterally and doesn’t need Congress to do anything. In the same paragraph, Johnson went on to suggest the Democratic president won’t enforce immigration laws anyway.
It was all a bit confusing.
Nevertheless, the Homeland Security Committee is poised to act, following the panel’s recent impeachment hearings against Mayorkas — a process that produced no evidence that the DHS secretary committed high crimes.
Circling back to our coverage from last week, a variety of constitutional experts from the left, right, and center have slammed the effort, arguing that impeaching a cabinet secretary without evidence of constitutional crimes would be at odds with our system of government and potentially dangerous. Even Jonathan Turley — ordinarily, a reliable ally for congressional Republicans — told GOP lawmakers they would be “wise to avoid” such a radical course.
At least for now, the party is ignoring the advice. Republicans have effectively concluded that Mayorkas is doing his job poorly — a dubious assertion, to be sure — which they believe is enough to warrant impeachment.
As the process moves forward, I continue to believe there are four elements to keep in mind. The first is the historical oddity of such an effort: The only time in American history that a cabinet secretary was impeached was in 1876, when the House impeached Secretary of War William Belknap — after he left office — over alleged bribes. (He was later acquitted by senators.)
The second is that even if Mayorkas were to be impeached, there’s little to suggest the Senate would convict him and remove him from office. Politico reported that some GOP senators “are openly signaling that even if impeachment managed to squeak through the House, it would quickly die in their chamber — and not just at the hands of the Democratic majority.”
Third, there’s no reason to assume that House Republicans would stop with the Homeland Security secretary. On the contrary, impeaching Mayorkas would likely embolden GOP radicals, who would target others, too. Given that the party’s impeachment list is almost comically long,
Finally, there are standards to consider: What would happen to the future of American politics if members of Congress decide they no longer need evidence of high crimes to impeach an official they don’t like?
This post updates our related earlier coverage.
