These articles are the product of a.
Deliberate, thoughtful, and fair investigation.
There is no greater impeachable events than for an officer of the United States a violate their oaths.
You have a short time coming.
You can honorably resign or we are going to.
Impeach you, and it's happening very very soon.
On this vote, the ya's are two fourteen and the nay's are two sixteen.
The resolution is not adopted.
An attempt by the Republicans to impeach DH Secretary Mayorcis yesterday over the border craziness failed because a handful of Republicans voted no, among them Congressman Tom McClintock the fourth District of California. Tom's often been described as the gold standard for fiscal conservative and conservatism and Congress if that even exists anymore, And the congressman joins us, Now, Tom, how are you, sir?
I'm doing fine. Thanks.
I'd imagine you're hearing it loud from a lot of Republican voters for your vote against the impeachment of may Orcus. How dare you, sir? Why are you for open borders? That's the question.
It's actually been fairly mild. We've only had two death threats so far, so I consider that a win.
Good day. Yeah, So why were you no vote on impeaching the dh DHS secretary.
Because that's not what impeachment is for. You know, I have nothing nice to say about Mayarcus. I think he is guillty of maladministration on a truly cosmic scale.
But that is not grounds for impeachment. And we know that because maladministration was specifically.
Considered by the Convention and rejected. Instead, they use the term high crimes and misdemeanors, and there's a very specific meaning to that, crimes that are related to the office.
By dumbing down the standard for impeachment, you're opening up a Pandora's box that will be turned against conservatives on the Supreme Court, would be turned against the future Republican administration and cabinet the moment the Democrats take control, and there'll be nobody to stop them because the Republicans will now have signed off on this new and very different
standard for impeachment. And the fact of the matter is, even if the Senate were to remove him, it changes nothing because he is simply carrying out the policies of this administration. You're not going to fix this by replacing one leftist official like may Orcus with say an Occasio Cortes. It only can be fixed by replacing the entire administration, and that can only be done by the American people at the ballot box.
And I think they're coming around to that conclusion.
I hadn't realized AOC was even on the short list with a terrifying notion. And I actually heard Mike Gollagher speaking on this topic and he said something very similar about swapping out one, you know, far left puppet for Biden for another one. What good would that do? But I want to nail this down in case people went
over a potholer didn't quite follow it. It was the Constitutional Convention where the concept of impeachment was being discussed at length that you referred to when you said the Convention, and they looked at well, you're just bad at your job and you're not doing it, and they specifically rejected that right.
Madison objected.
Actually, the committee on eleven, on September fourth, issues a recommendation treason and bribery only.
That's it. George Mason objected to that.
On September the eighth, he says, well, there ought to be something more than that.
He proposed maladministration.
That's basically doing a lousy job, and may Yorks is certainly guilty of that. And it was Madison who stood up and said, wait a second. You go down this path, then you're making the president a minister of the Senate. That destroys the entire concept of the separation of powers, that's the central architecture of this constitution. And that's when they rejected maladministration doing a bad job and substitute for it high crimes and misdemeanors. Actually committing a crime relating
to the office. That's the high and high crimes. You know. The example I use is Bill Clinton. He was definitely guilty of a crime perjury, but it was not a high crime, it was not related to his office. So he was unjustly impeached by the House. He was quickly acquitted by the Senate, and the American people made their displeasure with this partisan, one sided impeachment very clear at the polls. And it pains me to see the Republican Party making the same mistake again.
Well, and you already mentioned this, but the concern would be that would be constantly impeaching these people. You would have impeached the whoever was Secretary of Health and Human Services when the Republicans had the House because you didn't like the way the Obama Care rollout went. You to impeach the Secretary of the Treasury because we're printing so much money. I mean, there'd be so many things all the time.
That was Madison's point at the convention. At the moment, you have a president of one party and a Congress of the other.
If you're going to have.
A low standard like that, that's going to be a constant fixture now in our political life, and that's not going to go well for the country.
It's not altogether complicated.
And what an interesting way to illustrate it that the president would become a minister hired and fired by the Senate. Yeah, that's that's a good illustration, just as.
I was doing.
And by the way, these are the same arguments that I made against the sham impeachments of Donald Trump twice in the House Judiciary Committee.
And the same people who cheered.
Those arguments when I made them to oppose the impeachment of Trump are now jeering those same arguments and the principles haven't changed any It's just the shoes now on the other foot. As Alan Drschowitz would.
Say, since we're yeah, since we're talking immigration and that's what this is all about. Where are you on that Senate bill that if it miraculously passed the Senate comes to the House. Are you a yes or a no on that?
Oh? No, I'm a vigorous know on that. This is a terrible bill.
And you know they're selling it as an improvement on the current situation, and that part is true, but it would tie the hands of any president who actually wanted to control the border in the future. Just just to be clear on this, what it does is it says that the administration has to allow up to four thousand illegal.
Entries every day. If if it.
Goes above four thousand, the administration has the discretion of closing the border if it goes up above five thousand a day for seven days or more. They're required to do that. Now, again, that's an improvement over Biden. But imagine if the next president actually wants to secure our border, and I think we're going to the next president, will he's now he's now required to accept at least four thousand illegal immigrants a day, or up to four thousand
illegal immigrants a day under this bill. That's outrageous. That's one point eight million a year. And by the way, the cartels control that border. Nobody crosses it without their permission. They'll simply time they releases, so.
That you have you have three thy nine and ninety nine a day.
You can see the difference in enforcement between the two administrations. The day Trump left office, the border was secured. The remain in Mexico policy had slowed illegal immigration to a trickle of the border wall was nearing completion. We were actually enforcing court ordered deportations. His very first day in office, inauguration day, Joe Biden reversed those policies, and that is what has produced the largest illegal mass migration in American history,
and so it ultimately is an enforcement issue. This would make enforcement very difficult for a future president who actually wanted to do what Trump did and secure the border.
My only gripe with that argument, which I agree with, is that some of that authority, a significant part, was based on COVID though is there any getting that back?
Well, actually, the Immigration a Nationality Act let me reach it just as portion.
This is current law. Whenever the President.
Finds that the entry of any aliens or any class of aliens in the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may, by proclamation for such period as he should deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens and any class of aliens as immigrants or non immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
That's current law, this president.
That settles it, doesn't it? Yeah right, yeah, Well, I finally understood what Alejandro Miwerk has meant when he said the border is secure. The cartel is secured it. They're in charge of how many people can come across.
So we was telling you we.
Were totally at the real sector when we were passed a couple of months ago. Last month of the just in that sector, they asked.
Tom, the cartel is making.
Thirty two million dollars a week. That's about one point six billion dollars a year just in that one sector. So the crime cartels actually are making money completely controlling their side of the border, and we're losing a ton of money with the with the border wide open on our side, so there's something wrong with that. And again it comes down to enforcement. I you know, at Huma last year, I told the Border of Patrol offs we met with, we write laws, we can't enforce them. What
laws do you need us to write? And they said to him, man, we don't need new laws. We need to enforce the laws we already have on the books. Trump did, Biden didn't. And this, this Senate bill would lock in a future president and make it very difficult for him to actually control the borders, at least at least any anywhere below three nine daily illegal crossings.
Wow.
Tom McClintock, Congressman from the fourth district to California. Tom, you hit it out of the park. Good stuff. I'm sorry a fifth district, fifth district. Oh, they keep switching the damn districts. You're right, don't worry. People will be fired for giving me the wrong info. We don't we enforce the rules here, maybe not in the way here we do, all right, Tom, It's great to talk to you. Thanks, keep up the good work. Thanks Armstrong and Getty