Republicans implore House GOP to halt Biden admin impeachments

[mystery-ak]

Republicans implore House GOP to pump brakes on Biden administration impeachments
by Naomi Lim, White House Reporter |
January 11, 2023 06:40 AM

Regular business may have only just begun in the Republican-controlled House, but the first impeachment articles have already been filed against a member of the Biden administration.

Yet several Republicans are advising the House GOP not to start impeachment proceedings against President Joe Biden and his administration officials over apparent policy differences instead of accusations of wrongdoing.

On the same day Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) amplified her call to impeach Biden and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, Rep. Pat Fallon (R-TX) filed articles of impeachment against Mayorkas, claiming he has undermined "operational control" of the southern border and encouraged illegal immigration.

Despite the Democratic Senate majority, Biden administration policy- and personality-driven impeachments are a Republican "overreaction," according to former Georgia GOP Rep. Bob Barr, one of ex-President Bill Clinton's 1998 impeachment managers.

"The process of impeachment has been basically devalued in recent years since the Clinton impeachment, which was for, in my view, very specific violations of criminal law by a sitting president, into a political tool to simply go after a president and now others for policy disagreements," he told the Washington Examiner.

more
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/biden-impeachment-house-republicans

[Hoodat]

Despite the Democratic Senate majority, Biden administration policy- and personality-driven impeachments are a Republican "overreaction," according to former Georgia GOP Rep. Bob Barr, one of ex-President Bill Clinton's 1998 impeachment managers.

"The process of impeachment has been basically devalued in recent years since the Clinton impeachment, which was for, in my view, very specific violations of criminal law by a sitting president, into a political tool to simply go after a president and now others for policy disagreements," he told the Washington Examiner.

What part of Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution does Bob Barr not understand?

[BellyAche]

What part of Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution does Bob Barr not understand?

As a reminder....

Article IV, Section 4:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

[Smokin Joe]

Barr has been running interference for the Democrats for a while now.

[txradioguy]

There's not one good logical reason why they shouldn't impeach at least Mayorkas.

[Free Vulcan]

Prepare for ramming speed!

[Cyber Liberty]

There's not one good logical reason why they shouldn't impeach at least Mayorkas.

We should Impeach only when there is a reasonable chance of winning a conviction in the Senate.  All Dems will oppose any Impeachments when it's a Rat administration, and all Pubs will oppose any when it's our administration.  The Founders knew this, which is why it takes a 2/3 majority vote to convict.

I think we made the fatal mistake when we impeached Clinton, knowing it would fail in the Senate.  Now it's just a meaningless "No Confidence" vote with no ramifications.

[Fishrrman]

Cyber observes:
"We should Impeach only when there is a reasonable chance of winning a conviction in the Senate"

I disagree, at least in the instance of a Mayorkas impeachment.

No, there will not be a conviction.

But there WILL be sufficient "exposure" through investigation and testimony.

In his case, this is more important -- and may in itself be "enough".

[Bigun]

We should Impeach only when there is a reasonable chance of winning a conviction in the Senate.  All Dems will oppose any Impeachments when it's a Rat administration, and all Pubs will oppose any when it's our administration.  The Founders knew this, which is why it takes a 2/3 majority vote to convict.

I think we made the fatal mistake when we impeached Clinton, knowing it would fail in the Senate.  Now it's just a meaningless "No Confidence" vote with no ramifications.

I strongly disagree! We should impeach whenever it's called for regardless of what the Senate may or may not do.

[Hoodat]

All Dems will oppose any Impeachments when it's a Rat administration, and all Pubs will oppose any when it's our administration.  The Founders knew this

Not so.  The Founding Fathers did not envision political parties.  But they did envision Senators representing their respective States.  Both are no longer in effect.

[Hoodat]

I strongly disagree! We should impeach whenever it's called for regardless of what the Senate may or may not do.

Correct.  If a high officer or judge commits an impeachable offense, it is their duty to impeach.  And openly violating the Constitution for two years is an impeachable offense.

[roamer_1]

We should Impeach only when there is a reasonable chance of winning a conviction in the Senate.  All Dems will oppose any Impeachments when it's a Rat administration, and all Pubs will oppose any when it's our administration.  The Founders knew this, which is why it takes a 2/3 majority vote to convict.

I think we made the fatal mistake when we impeached Clinton, knowing it would fail in the Senate.  Now it's just a meaningless "No Confidence" vote with no ramifications.

I will stand with you. If there is not enough evidence, and if there is not meaningful support in the Senate, there is no point in impeachment... It has turned into a partisan tit for tat. That is not what it is for.

[The_Reader_David]

The trouble is, with conviction in the Senate impossible, the only point with an impeachment against Biden or any of his officials would be if it was a political win, that is if the charges in the bill of impeachment were solid enough and serious enough that a majority of voters would support removal of the official on the basis of them.  If that criterion is not met, satisfying as it might be to throw a pointless impeachment as Biden and/or one of his cabinet officers as vengeance for the pointless impeachments thrown at Trump, it is not a good idea.

[Free Vulcan]

I'm all about the discovery. Impeachment if it's advantageous.

[The_Reader_David]

I'm all about the discovery. Impeachment if it's advantageous.

The advantages of discovery can be had by using Congressional subpoena powers in an investigation.  Impeachment only makes sense if there is either a chance of conviction or it is a political win even without conviction (see the criteria in my post up-thread).

[corbe]

We should Impeach only when there is a reasonable chance of winning a conviction in the Senate.  All Dems will oppose any Impeachments when it's a Rat administration, and all Pubs will oppose any when it's our administration.  The Founders knew this, which is why it takes a 2/3 majority vote to convict.

I think we made the fatal mistake when we impeached Clinton, knowing it would fail in the Senate.  Now it's just a meaningless "No Confidence" vote with no ramifications.

   I somewhat agree @Cyber Liberty This Impeachment idea reared its ugly head in the 70's w/Nixon, and they probably would have had him if he'd not been forced to resign by his own party.  We Impeached Clinton and they never forgave us for that.  They were in the process of Impeaching GWB when 911 happened. They got even with Trump, though. 
   BUT that Border Patrol Czar should be the next neck on the chopping block.

[Right_in_Virginia]

There's not one good logical reason why they shouldn't impeach at least Mayorkas.

Could be an opportunity to educate voters about this administration and the border before November 2024.