A Trial to Endure

I have two wishes when it comes to the impeachment trail of DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.  I don't expect either to come to fruition -- though I don't think either is unreasonable to wish for, and that perhaps something related to them might come to pass.

The first is that I hope Democrats (who are in charge of setting the rules for the trial) decide to fast-track this lunacy, which stops the Senate for any work while an impeachment trial is taking place.  And fast-track it so much that they say, "There will be one hour of debate, 30 minutes for each side, and then we will vote."

I doubt something that fast will happen, though I can see Democrats setting rules to move the trial much quicker than usual.  After all, this is just a GOP complaint about policy, not high crimes and misdemeanor.  There hasn't been an impeachment of a cabinet official in 150  years -- and that was because of clear evidence of kickbacks.  In the intervening century-and-a-half, Congress has recognized that the party out of power will disagree with administration policy and that this doesn't qualify as a high crime or misdemeanor.

At the heart of the issue is that the Biden administration is not detaining many migrants who are stopped for illegal crossings while making asylum claims. But there are limits to what DHS and border security can do based on what Congress has authorized, both in terms of money and manpower.  And as a result of those limits, DHS is allowed -- by law -- the release the migrants under various protective conditions.  (The Trump administration faced the same limits and problems, though they handled it by separating families and putting children in cages.) 

One of the empty GOP charges is that Sec. Mayorkas "lied" under oath.  What he actually did was explain at a hearing how he was running his office, and Republicans didn't like the policy.  Disagreement does not make a "high crime and misdemeanor."  Republicans also charge a "willful and systematic refusal to comply” with what they want policy to be -- but again, of course, just because you don't like someone's policy, and they do different from what you want, that is not an impeachable "high crime and misdemeanor."

If these were impeachable offenses, then almost every cabinet member over the past 150  years could have been impeached.  But sanity (and understanding of government and the Constitution) ruled, and it never happened.

The short version being is that there is no evidence presented of "high crimes and misdemeanors" and no impeachable offenses.  Which means, if the Senate wants, they could get this trial dealt with -- over and run -- really fast.  Most especially since Democrats have a majority of the Senate, and the trial will never, ever get the two-thirds voted required for conviction.

Which bring up my second wish.

It's that I hope enough Republican Senators (who tend to be a bit more sane than House Republicans -- a very low bar, I know) want no part of this "impeachment" and understand how irresponsible it is and what a horrific precedence it would and how they are horrified by the risk of being tarred by the effort...and so it's such a massive vote to reject the charge that the House GOP are so profoundly embarrassed by their latest crazed action that they not only never try something similar again, but that it impacts on their own elections.  In a dream world, I'd wish for a vote of 80-20 "not guilty".  But I'd be thrilled with even a two-thirds vote against conviction, of 67-33, which would be both damning and hilarious.  (Even as many as 10 Republican "no" votes would speak loudly.)

All this said, there is only one reason I'd be okay with a long trial.  That's because, for a reason only known to religious zealot Speaker Mike Johnson, he has named Marjorie Taylor Greene one of the House Managers to present the case to the Senate.  No, really. The best I can figure is that no one else wanted the job.

With this in mind, I'd sort of be okay to have the trial last as long as possible and have Ms. Taylor Greene speak as long as she wants in front of a live, national TV audience and been seen as the voice and face of today's Republican Party.

Which, in many ways, she is.