“The impeachment process is not intended to be used as a political weapon. The move to impeach Mayorkas is a pointless sideshow and deserves to fail.”
Incredible. The CNN column by lawyer Raul Reyes nicked so many Ethics Alarms categories that I couldn’t figure out which way to turn. The whole article is disingenuous, and the work of an ethics dunce. The quote above is unethical in its deliberate failure to acknowledge relevant history. That CNN, of all places, would publish an article calling for the impeachment device to be used sparingly and legitimately by Congress is offensive. And it made my head explode, qualifying it as an automatic KABOOM!
Ethics Alarms began pointing out in 2017 that the determined efforts by Democrats to search for an excuse to impeach President Trump in completely partisan proceedings would have the result of neutralizing and negating the future value of impeachment as a tool to remove a POTUS who needed to be impeached for the good of the nation and under the terms of the Constitution. Now, thanks to the two contrived House impeachments, the procedure has been already reduced to exactly what Reyes claims the Mayorkas impeachment will do to the measure. That horse has fled the metaphorical barn and is now cavorting in a meadow somewhere, and it was Democrats, not House Republicans, who opened the barn door.
CNN, of course, was one of the primary media cheerleaders for both Trump impeachments. The Reyes column even has the gall to cite Prof. Turley as expert authority for the proposition that “there is no valid impeachment case” to be made against Mayorkas, without bothering to mention that the professor even more vociferously objected to both Trump impeachments, testifying against the first impeachment in the pre-impeachment hearings, and condemning the second impeachment as lacking due process and fairness, what he termed at the time a “snap impeachment.”
Ann Althouse first brought the CNN piece to my attention, prompting an amusing game: how quickly and to what extent would her readers express amazement at the essay’s contrived ignorance of the real culprits in the ruination of the impeachment remedy.
The answer, as you can read here, was “immediately” and “almost unanimously.”
Ethics Alarms 
Kate said…“Instead of diversity training, let’s make everyone undergo irony training.”
Priceless!
PWS
We all knew this would happen. When Democrats politicized the impeachment process during the Trump Administration, we were all aware of this ultimate end game.
Sometimes it sucks to be right…
Along with “novel applications of criminal laws to unprecedented circumstances”.
https://archive.is/57pIb
I am surprised the editors allowed this phrase to be used- let alone insisting that the indictment were a “plain application of criminal law, backed up by a century of Supreme Court precedent”.
This shouldn’t be that hard. Every Federal employee (save the President) takes essentially the same Oath of Office. The third of the three main pieces of the Oath (it’s slightly different for military personnel) is “and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.”
I see this as the equivalent to the Constitutional admonition that the President “take care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”
I’d argue that the Mayorkas Oath requires him to “faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter,” which should include enforcing the Immigration Statutes. Likewise, if Mayorkas fails at this, I think it incumbent on the President to remove him from his office (HAH!).
I am, however, a simple engineer who served in the USAF for over 22 years, and have difficulty seeing why Biden hasn’t taken care that the laws be faithfully executed. I know that Impeachment and conviction isn’t likely, so it’s up to Congress to get rid of Mayorkas.
MB
After the Secretary of Defense took a powder, didn’t resign & wasn’t fired, I posted a question on Quora asking if Joe Biden had ever fired anyone, ever.
The answers came in faster than anything I had asked, receiving the first answer within two minutes.
First up in the answers was a criticism for my use of the word fired. 2nd place was “of course he has” without any citations. 3rd was “why do you want to know?”
The rest were accusatory. None of them answered “Yes.” I think I have my answer.
The democrats have been playing this game since at least Robert Bork. Break the rules, push the boundaries, do whatever it takes to win – then call the rule-abiding Republicans hypocrites and cheaters when they follow suit. I’m never surprised by it anymore, I’m more surprised that it ever still works.