[75 / 1 / 1]
Democrats dismiss charges against themselves
Ignoring 200 years of precedent they table an impeachment motion against mayorkas instead of allowing a trial, effectively meaning the Senate can ignore the House when they impeach someone, something that's never been done before
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/live-blog/senators-begin-dhs-secretary-mayorkas-impeachment-trial-live-updates-rcna147038
The House impeached Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas in February and, on Tuesday, formally referred the issue to the Senate for a trial.
Democrats voted to rule both impeachment articles unconstitutional because they did not rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors." They then adjourned the trial.
The first impeachment article had accused Mayorkas of “willfully and systemically” refusing to comply with federal immigration laws. The second charged him with making false statements to Congress.
In the end, Sen. Eric Schmitt’s, R-Mo., objection to allowing for debate and procedural votes ahead of the Democrats’ motions to dispense with the two articles of impeachment precluded Republicans from putting Democrats in a tough spot with substantive votes.
Republicans had planned to force Democrats to take tough votes, like on the constitutionality of not holding a trial. But because Schmitt objected to a debate agreement, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY, immediately moved to question the constitutionality of the articles of impeachment. And that meant Republican senators could only force votes on procedural questions like adjourning or going into closed session.
Schmitt was pressed on his decision by reporters and responded by saying, “Impeachments aren’t debatable. So if you have an impeachment trial, we don’t debate that we listen, we hear evidence. All we were asking for is something that has happened every single time articles of impeachment have ever come over the United States Senate.”
Ignoring 200 years of precedent they table an impeachment motion against mayorkas instead of allowing a trial, effectively meaning the Senate can ignore the House when they impeach someone, something that's never been done before
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/live-blog/senators-begin-dhs-secretary-mayorkas-impeachment-trial-live-updates-rcna147038
The House impeached Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas in February and, on Tuesday, formally referred the issue to the Senate for a trial.
Democrats voted to rule both impeachment articles unconstitutional because they did not rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors." They then adjourned the trial.
The first impeachment article had accused Mayorkas of “willfully and systemically” refusing to comply with federal immigration laws. The second charged him with making false statements to Congress.
In the end, Sen. Eric Schmitt’s, R-Mo., objection to allowing for debate and procedural votes ahead of the Democrats’ motions to dispense with the two articles of impeachment precluded Republicans from putting Democrats in a tough spot with substantive votes.
Republicans had planned to force Democrats to take tough votes, like on the constitutionality of not holding a trial. But because Schmitt objected to a debate agreement, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY, immediately moved to question the constitutionality of the articles of impeachment. And that meant Republican senators could only force votes on procedural questions like adjourning or going into closed session.
Schmitt was pressed on his decision by reporters and responded by saying, “Impeachments aren’t debatable. So if you have an impeachment trial, we don’t debate that we listen, we hear evidence. All we were asking for is something that has happened every single time articles of impeachment have ever come over the United States Senate.”
