Don’t Expect the Mayorkas Impeachment Trial to Last Long

Conservative legal scholars and even three House Republicans have questioned Mayorkas’ impeachment. They concluded that the GOP case against him is essentially a proxy trial over President Joe Biden’s handling of immigration. In this way, they fear a new precedent that would allow Cabinet officials to be impeached over policy disputes between branches of government.

House Speaker Mike Johnson called on senators to hold a full trial. But even Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell says it’s likely the case will be quickly thrown out. No one in Washington seriously believes that Mayorkas faces conviction, which would require a two-thirds majority of votes and therefore require the support of many Democrats.

“(T)he Democrats have the majority, so this may not last very long,” McConnell told reporters earlier in the week. “But my preference would be to have a trial. But I think the majority is likely to prevent that.”

Here’s how Democrats will likely handle Mayorkas’ impeachment.

Didn’t the House impeach Mayorkas almost two months ago?

Yes. After failing to impeach Mayorkas in the first vote, House Republicans narrowly impeached the Homeland Security secretary on February 13.

Since then, the Republican Party has held on to those articles as Republicans struggled to meet two deadlines to avoid a partial government shutdown. The delay has led to some potential embarrassment, namely that since President Mike Johnson named Greene as impeachment manager, she has decided to begin the process of removing him from power.

This is arguably the most prestigious role she has held since joining Congress.

How will Democrats handle the accusations?

Democrats can use several ways to quickly get rid of the items. The simplest thing would be for a senator to ask for the charges to be dismissed. Although senators are sworn in as jurors during all impeachment trials, they do not act like a typical jury. They don’t need to try to avoid the news. They can first openly express their point of view on the matter. And if the trial reaches that stage, they would have the opportunity to ask written questions of both Mayorkas’ defense team and the House managers.

Based on historical precedent, a senator could seek removal soon after the Senate formally decides to become a court or within a brief period allowing the filing of pretrial motions, according to a group of law experts. Accused. The experts, who have written in detail about the trial proceedings for Just Security, also point out that there is precedent for rejecting such a motion. Senator Robert Byrd, a West Virginia Democrat, unsuccessfully offered a motion to dismiss the articles of impeachment against President Bill Clinton during his trial in 1999. Clinton was later acquitted.

It’s worth noting, as the Washington Post pointed out, that the Senate has never dismissed charges against a current official without conducting a trial. He has already dismissed articles against two federal judges who resigned after their indictment.

How else could Democrats try to move forward?

One of the other main ways Democrats could act to avoid the spectacle of a trial would be to refer the matter to a special committee. In the past, the Senate has taken such steps when dealing with impeachments of federal judges. Of course, the removal of a Cabinet official like Mayorkas might hit lawmakers differently than those cases.

A special commission would then be responsible for conducting the trial. Unlike a full trial, a committee would handle deliberations outside of the Senate and without requiring the participation of all 100 lawmakers.

The committee would report to the full Senate. At that point, senators could then do more or simply vote on the articles after reviewing the committee record.

Is it certain that there will not be a full trial?

Little is certain in Washington, but Democrats could make any of these motions a simple majority vote. The Republicans’ only hope would be that Democratic senators facing difficult re-election bids refuse to support such moves in the face of political pressure.

One Nation, a conservative group, spent more than $15 million on immigration-focused ads targeting Sen. Jon Tester, a Montana Democrat who faces one of the toughest re-election bids, reported Politico. Tester previously said he would support a motion to dismiss.

It’s worth pointing out that the most conservative Democratic senator, Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, has previously criticized impeachment. The Republicans could also lose one of their votes. Senator Mitt Romney of Utah has expressed skepticism about the matter.

Why are even some Republicans against impeaching Mayorka?

Three House Republicans, Reps. Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin, Ken Buck of Colorado and Tom McClintock of California, all voted against impeaching Mayorkas. All three lawmakers raised concerns that by impeaching Mayorkas, they were lowering the bar for future impeachments.

The question is whether, as the three men believed, the accusations against Mayorkas constitute “maladministration.” Jonathan Turley, a conservative legal scholar, also concluded that this was the case. Turley argued that the Founders and Framers specifically rejected setting the bar for impeachment lower.

“Being a bad person is not relentless, otherwise many firms would be largely empty,” wrote Turley, a professor at George Washington University Law School. “Besides, being bad at your job is not an impeachable offense. Even really bad. Even Mayorkas level of bad.”

The Wall Street Journal editorial board also opposes impeachment, citing similar grounds. The board emphasized that while Republicans hate Biden’s immigration policies, their fight is better suited to the president, not an administration official who is simply implementing his policies.