Why is Biden Administration Lying about Border Crisis?

[Biker]

You know the REAL reason. You just don't have the balls to say it.

That is the real reason. The House doesnt have the appetite to fund Ukraine any longer. Senate not so much

[Biker]

[CHEEZY17]

Well deserved. Fuck this guy.
House GOP impeaches Mayorkas after previous vote failure
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2 ... p-00141296

[Animal]

Well deserved. Fuck this guy.
House GOP impeaches Mayorkas after previous vote failure
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2 ... p-00141296

That's weird. McCarthy wouldn't have done that. Is this the democrats fault?

[dot]

Well deserved. Fuck this guy.
House GOP impeaches Mayorkas after previous vote failure
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2 ... p-00141296

And all without any crime or impeachable offense. Oh, that's not what well deserved means at all. Partisan hacks doing hack things.

[CHEEZY17]

Dodgin' Dot defending Mayorkas? Shocker!

[dot]

So what was the impeachable crime? His high crime or misdemeanor? Or is this like with the Biden impeachment where we are still waiting for you to conjure up a crime to charge him with because you don't have evidence for anything?

[Animal]

So what was the impeachable crime? His high crime or misdemeanor? Or is this like with the Biden impeachment where we are still waiting for you to conjure up a crime to charge him with because you don't have evidence for anything?

failure to enforce laws that require the detention of migrants who lack authorization to enter the US.
exceeding his authority of allowing these people to remain free to roam about the country pending their processing.
breaching the public trust of falsely reporting the condition of the border to lawmakers
hampering the official investigation into his conduct.

[CHEEZY17]

So what was the impeachable crime? His high crime or misdemeanor? Or is this like with the Biden impeachment where we are still waiting for you to conjure up a crime to charge him with because you don't have evidence for anything?

[dot]

failure to enforce laws that require the detention of migrants who lack authorization to enter the US.
exceeding his authority of allowing these people to remain free to roam about the country pending their processing.
breaching the public trust of falsely reporting the condition of the border to lawmakers
hampering the official investigation into his conduct.

https://time.com/6554103/mayorkas-impea ... riticized/

But legal experts warned that policy disputes, even if contentious, do not meet the constitutional impeachment threshold of high crimes and misdemeanors. "If members of this committee disapprove of the Biden Administration’s immigration and border policies, the Constitution gives this Congress a wealth of legislative powers to change them—impeachment is not one of those powers," Frank Bowman, a professor emeritus of law at the University of Missouri School of Law, testified at the hearing. "Dislike of a president's policy is certainly not one of [the grounds for impeachment].”

Legal scholars agree that the purpose of impeachment is to serve as a constitutional mechanism for the removal of federal officials who engage in serious misconduct, ensuring accountability and safeguarding the integrity of the government. Impeachable actions typically encompass severe offenses such as corruption, abuse of power, or subversion of the U.S. Constitution. These criteria, often cited as high crimes and misdemeanors in the constitutional context, provide a framework for evaluating whether an official's conduct warrants the extraordinary measure of impeachment, a process that involves both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

So, not an impeachable offense. But hey, I'll throw you a bone. I got you a reason to impeach him.

https://newrepublic.com/post/178776/rep ... mpeachment

Neguse then attacked Green for attempting to unseat Mayorkas for his own political gain, referring to a New York Times article from last April that stated Green had “promised donors this month that he would produce an impeachment case against” Mayorkas.

“This is before your committee has heard from Secretary Mayorkas,” Neguse said. “It’s before you’ve had the witnesses that have apparently come before your committee. It’s before you’ve had any meaningful debate. You decide a year ago?”

The reason to impeach him is because your side promised their donors their pound of flesh. That makes more sense, don't it?

Bonus for fun points:

During a Monday committee hearing on the impeachment resolution to oust Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, Neguse had questions for Representative Mark Green about an op-ed from five years ago.

“I’m going to enter it into the record. The title is, ‘Americans are the Victims of the Impeachment Inquiry,’” Neguse said. “The subtitle … is, ‘A lot of bipartisan legislation that enjoys support sits gathering dust while Congress focuses on the impeachment inquiry.’”

“I assume you disagree with this?” Neguse prodded.

“I do,” Green replied.

But that turned out to be the wrong answer, trapping Green in a web of his own making.

“This is an editorial that you wrote five years ago during the debate about the impeachment of former President Trump,” Neguse went on, referring to the November 2019 piece by Green that ran in The Tennessean.

[Animal]

apparently DOT doesn't like the crimes that they impeached Mayorkas over.

[CHEEZY17]

apparently DOT doesn't like the crimes that they impeached Mayorkas over.

I bet Dodgin' Dot actually thinks Mayorkas has done a great job.
I suppose I could just ask what he thinks about his job performance but he'd probably just delete and dodge the question.

[Animal]

apparently DOT doesn't like the crimes that they impeached Mayorkas over.

I bet Dodgin' Dot actually thinks Mayorkas has done a great job.
I suppose I could just ask what he thinks about his job performance but he'd probably just delete and dodge the question.

Dot has gotten so wheels off at this point that all he is doing is trolling. he can't defend a single thing he's talking about.

[Biker]

[Biker]

apparently DOT doesn't like the crimes that they impeached Mayorkas over.

I bet Dodgin' Dot actually thinks Mayorkas has done a great job.
I suppose I could just ask what he thinks about his job performance but he'd probably just delete and dodge the question.

Dot has gotten so wheels off at this point that all he is doing is trolling. he can't defend a single thing he's talking about.

Thats because we keep moving the goalposts

[Homebrew]

[dot]

apparently DOT doesn't like the crimes that they impeached Mayorkas over.

What crimes? Try again.

[Animal]

apparently DOT doesn't like the crimes that they impeached Mayorkas over.

What crimes? Try again.

i listed them. you didn't like them. you cried and cried. the end.

[CHEEZY17]

Just generally speaking in an overall context: Dogin' Dot, do you think Mayorkas has done a good job in his position?

[dot]

i listed them. you didn't like them. you cried and cried. the end.

Except you didn't. No impeachable crimes, sorry that you got suckered but next time go outside the bubble for research.

[Animal]

i listed them. you didn't like them. you cried and cried. the end.

Except you didn't. No impeachable crimes, sorry that you got suckered but next time go outside the bubble for research.

I know that the law is, by far, your weakest subject. But how about you give me the legal definition of what a "high crime and misdemeanor" is. Thanks.

[dot]

I know that the law is, by far, your weakest subject. But how about you give me the legal definition of what a "high crime and misdemeanor" is. Thanks.

Why, is the refuting of your assertion already posted not sufficient for partisan hackery? Where legal experts say the stated reasons for impeachment do not meet the threshold for impeachment? Or how policy disagreements are not reason enough for impeachment? Perhaps we should expect to only take the word of GOP reps who demand aid to Ukraine to be tied to border security only for them to reject any and all the border security wishlist items they are offered. Or maybe we should take those same reps at their word that Joe Biden was recorded taking bribes only for no tapes to have ever existed and the purveyor of that accusation now under arrest for making a false statement, that false statement. Wait, no, we only believe the GOP reps who tell us that testimony behind closed doors of star witnesses prove Joe Biden is corrupt... only for the transcripts to reveal that's not what the testimony said at all, in fact saying the opposite.

At some point, most people understand they're being lied to about the things they keep ending up on the wrong side of. What's your limit?

[Animal]

I know that the law is, by far, your weakest subject. But how about you give me the legal definition of what a "high crime and misdemeanor" is. Thanks.

Why, is the refuting of your assertion already posted not sufficient for partisan hackery? Where legal experts say the stated reasons for impeachment do not meet the threshold for impeachment? Or how policy disagreements are not reason enough for impeachment? Perhaps we should expect to only take the word of GOP reps who demand aid to Ukraine to be tied to border security only for them to reject any and all the border security wishlist items they are offered. Or maybe we should take those same reps at their word that Joe Biden was recorded taking bribes only for no tapes to have ever existed and the purveyor of that accusation now under arrest for making a false statement, that false statement. Wait, no, we only believe the GOP reps who tell us that testimony behind closed doors of star witnesses prove Joe Biden is corrupt... only for the transcripts to reveal that's not what the testimony said at all, in fact saying the opposite.

At some point, most people understand they're being lied to about the things they keep ending up on the wrong side of. What's your limit?

i am just going to assume you are drunk.

I listed the crimes Mayorkas committed. Be my guest to explain to the class why any of them are not "high crimes or misdemeanors".

[dot]

i am just going to assume you are drunk.

I listed the crimes Mayorkas committed. Be my guest to explain to the class why any of them are not "high crimes or misdemeanors".

Don't believe me? Believe the legal experts and scholars who tell you that your list doesn't mean the threshold for impeachment. We both know you didn't get to your conclusion on your own, so feel free to branch out and read what people outside your bubble say about this endeavor. You can begin with the citations I gave.

[Animal]

i am just going to assume you are drunk.

I listed the crimes Mayorkas committed. Be my guest to explain to the class why any of them are not "high crimes or misdemeanors".

Don't believe me? Believe the legal experts and scholars who tell you that your list doesn't mean the threshold for impeachment. We both know you didn't get to your conclusion on your own, so feel free to branch out and read what people outside your bubble say about this endeavor. You can begin with the citations I gave.

you mean, you can use the opinions of legal experts as evidence in a debate?