By
The House Republicans’ impeachment list is almost comically long. At last count, it included the sitting president, sitting vice president, six members of the White House Cabinet, the director of the FBI, and a largely unknown federal prosecutor.
But there’s one official in particular who might actually be impeached by the House’s GOP majority. The New York Times reported:
House Republicans wrapped up impeachment hearings against Alejandro N. Mayorkas, the homeland security secretary, on Thursday, a little more than a week after the proceedings began, racing to charge him with failing to enforce the nation’s immigration laws. The Republicans are moving ahead without evidence that Mr. Mayorkas has committed high crimes or misdemeanors, the constitutional standard for impeachment, effectively seeking to remove him for immigration policies they argue have imperiled the American public.
In a normal Congress, lawmakers considering impeachment might seek testimony from their target, possible witnesses, and/or constitutional scholars. They might also take care to document the accused official’s high crimes.
In the GOP-led House, however, Republican officials have decided to skip all of this and just move forward with the Mayorkas impeachment crusade anyway.
It’s worth emphasizing that GOP lawmakers have claimed that the Homeland Security secretary “declined” to testify in person. That wasn’t altogether true: NBC News published a report this week noting that Mayorkas told the Homeland Security Committee that he couldn’t testify this week — he was scheduled to host Mexican government officials to discuss border enforcement — but the secretary volunteered to answer the panel’s questions, in person and in public, another time.
Republicans decided not to bother. (House Homeland Security Chair Mark Green said he was “considering” holding Mayorkas in contempt of Congress, which was a weird thing to say given that the secretary wasn’t subpoenaed.)
A variety of constitutional experts from the left, right, and center have slammed the effort, arguing that impeaching a cabinet secretary without evidence of constitutional crimes would be at odds with our system of government and potentially dangerous. Even Jonathan Turley — ordinarily, a reliable ally for congressional Republicans — told GOP lawmakers they would be “wise to avoid” such a radical course.
At least for now, the party is ignoring the advice. Republicans have effectively concluded that Mayorkas is bad at his job — a dubious assertion, to be sure — which they believe is enough to warrant impeachment.
As the process moves forward, there are a few things to keep in mind. The first is the historical oddity of such an effort: The only time in American history that a cabinet secretary was impeached was in 1876, when the House impeached Secretary of War William Belknap — after he left office — over alleged bribes. (He was later acquitted by senators.)
The second is that even if Mayorkas were to be impeached, there’s little to suggest the Senate would convict him and remove him from office. Politico reported that some GOP senators “are openly signaling that even if impeachment managed to squeak through the House, it would quickly die in their chamber — and not just at the hands of the Democratic majority.”
Third, there’s no reason to assume that House Republicans would stop with the Homeland Security secretary. On the contrary, impeaching Mayorkas would likely embolden GOP radicals, who would push to impeach others, too.
Finally, there are standards to consider: What would happen to the future of American politics if members of Congress decide they no longer need evidence of high crimes to impeach an official they don’t like?
This post updates our related earlier coverage.