EPIC: Senate Republicans Absolutely Unleash On Schumer After Mayorkas Impeachment Articles Dismissed

the Senate will be in order with

Senators please take their conversations

to the clo Madam president we've said a

very unfortunate precedent

here this means that the

Senate can ignore in effect The house's

impeachment it doesn't make any

difference whether our friends on the

other side thought he should have been

impeached or not he

was and by doing what we just did we

have in effect

ignored the directions of the house

which were to have a

trial that no evidence no procedure this

is a day that's not a proud day in the

history of the

Senate if you want to

[Applause]

sign mam president

senator from Utah's recognized Madam

president I ask unanimous consent to

enter into a colloquy with my Republican

colleagues without objection so

order Madam president senator from Utah

would hold we do not have order in the

Senate I would ask all Senators who to

take their conversations to the cloak

room as well as the staff the senator

would just hold till we have order

please senator from Utah is recognized

thank you Madame

President what we've witnessed today is

truly historic this has never occurred

nothing like this has ever occurred you

know under Article 1 Section 3 Clause 6

we've been given a duty we've been given

this the sole exclusive power to try all

impeachments try all impeachments not

some of them not just those with which

we have happen to agree not just those

that we are happy that the House of

Representatives undertook to prosecute

but all

the word try is also

significant it refers to the word trial

it's the same word it's a proceeding in

which the law and the facts are

presented to finders of fact in front

of judges in order to reach an ultimate

disposition in a criminal proceeding it

would be an ultimate disposition

culminating in a verdict of guilty or

not guilty we were precluded from doing

that job today and we were precluded

from doing so in a way that is not only

ahistoric and unprecedented but also

counter

constitutional nothing could be further

from the plain structure text and

history of the Constitution than that so

let's look at the arguments that we

would have heard that we could have

heard that we should have heard today

had things unfolded as they were

supposed to had things unfolded in a

manner consistent with the oath that we

took first when we were sworn in as

United States

senators we're all required to take the

same oath to the Constitution when we

did that but also the oath that we took

just a few hours ago in this very

chamber in this very case to decide this

case

impartially what would we have heard

well first and foremost regardless of

what you think about what a trial

consists of or how different people

might cleverly Define the term a trial

will always at a minimum involve lawyers

involve lawyers and unless the person is

proceeding prosay you will always have

lawyers there at least one side will

always be represented by lawyers and in

99.9% of all cases both sides will you

will hear from lawyers we didn't hear

that today we didn't hear from the

committee of individuals appointed by

the House of Representatives to be the

ow the house impeachment managers or

prosecutors what else would you expect

to hear well you you'd hear uh evidence

evidence would be brought in sometimes

trials in the Senate involve bringing in

evidence u in a documentary form other

times you might have witnesses we didn't

have any Witnesses we didn't have any

documentary evidence other than that

which was charged so let's talk about

what was charged and what evidence we

could have would have and should have

heard had we done our job

today well the the accusations in

this impeachment trial can be fit into

two categories category one is found in

article one of the articles of

impeachment article

one alleges that secretary mayorcas

repeatedly defiantly did the exact

opposite of what Federal Law requires

namely that under Myriad circumstances

eight or nine different statutory

Provisions that he violated he was

required to detain people whom he did

not detain but it's not just that he

didn't do what the law required he did

the exact opposite of that instead of

holding them and such time as they could

be removed or alternatively adjudicated

to have the status whether under uh

impeach whether in the context of

immigration parole or Asylum or

otherwise he just released them and in

many cases gave them work

permits we would have heard

evidence about the fact that memoranda

issued by secretary mayorcas within the

Department of Homeland Security did just

tolerate this result they instructed

this result we would have heard evidence

about the fact that at the outset of the

Biden

Administration secretary mayorcas when

asked what he would tell those traveling

through the Caravans those paying many

thousands of dollars per head in some

cases tens of thousands of dollars per

head to International drug

cartels instead of telling them don't do

it he said maybe don't do it yet give us

a a few weeks before we're ready to

receive you

showing intention A4 thought to

facilitate the violation of federal law

we would have heard evidence about how

he instructed his own Department to

violate those

rules we would have heard evidence about

how directly contrary to federal law

those things are and contrary to his own

oath and his own duties now as to

article one

Senate chose to dispose of this today by

doing something it's never done in any

context anywhere close to this with a

point of

order that said as follows the majority

leader stood

up defiantly refusing to have the Senate

perform its obligations and raised the

following point of order he said I raise

a point of order that impeachment

article one does not allege conduct that

rises to the level of a high crime or

misdemeanor as required under Article 2

Section 4 of the United States

Constitution is therefore

unconstitutional all right let's uh

let's talk about that per minute now had

had we been permitted to have a trial

alternatively had we been permitted to

go into executive session alternatively

had we been permitted to go into Clos

session as several of us moved

today we would have been able to hear

arguments about this about how wrong

this is because that's what you do when

you have a trial you hear evidence you

hear arguments from lawyers and when

someone makes a legal argument as

Majority Leader Schumer just

did you could consider their

implications and most importantly

consider whether or not the argument is

right because when we're sworn

in in a trial of

impeachment our job is to serve as both

finders of fact and adjudicators of law

relevant to this case we were denied

that opportunity so while we're

exploring we would have heard had we

gone to trial had we done our job let's

also explore what would have happened in

a real trial had somebody made an actual

motion and we've been permitted to do

our job well look first and foremost

this is U patently absurd to argue that

a willful refusal to obey the law that

one has a sworn solemn obligation to

perform is somehow not

impeachable we don't have to look too

far in order to find support

for the conclusion that this is an

illegitimate unwarranted unwarranted

unsubstantiated claim one this directly

contrary to law in fact we don't have to

look further than President Biden's own

lawyer the solicitor general of the

United States who holds a a special

position within our federal government

performs functions that many people

mistakenly uh associate with the

attorney general but it is in fact the

solicitor general who is the United

States government's Chief appellant

Advocate and chief Advocate before all

proceedings in the US Supreme Court

there was an exchange in a case uh

argued last term in the Supreme Court of

the United States called United States

versus

Texas in that case the Supreme Court uh

heard arguments from the state of Texas

about whether or not this

administration's approach toward these

same provisions of law is acceptable

whether or not they could challenge them

now unfortunately the Supreme Court uh

reached a a conclusion a conclusion with

which I strongly

disagree and the Supreme Court concluded

ultimately that the state of Texas lacks

standing to

challenge federal policy federal policy

along the lines of what we're discussing

today uh not withstanding the fact that

it's it's conduct that inflicts

substantial harm on the state of Texas

and its

residents but the important part that we

should been able to argue here today is

the exchange that occurred at oral

argument between Justice

Kavanaugh and Elizabeth prer solicitor

general of the United States in her

capacity as solicitor general as the

Biden administration's Chief appell at

Advocate and chief Advocate before the

United States Supreme Court Justice

Kavanaugh asked her a number of

questions at oral argument and on page

50 of that argument transcript some of

that discussion

ensues yes of following if a new

Administration comes in and says we are

not going to enforce environmental laws

we're not going to enforce labor laws

your position I believe is that no state

and no individual and no business would

have standing to challenge a decision to

as a blanket matter not just enforce uh

just not enforce those laws correct is

here's what solicitor general pror says

quote that's correct under this Court's

precedent but the framers intended

political checks in that circumstance

you know if if an Administration did

something that extreme and said we're

just not going to enforce the law at all

then the president would be held to

account by the voters and Congress has

tools at its disposal as well so this

argument

continues

continues on to the next page in which

Justice Kavanaugh says what are the

exact tools that Congress has to make

sure that the laws are enforced

and then solicor general prar answers

she says well I think Congress obviously

has the power of the purse and she goes

on to explain how this is relevant and

then this goes on until we get to page

53 and then at page

53 Justice Kavanaugh jumps back in and

says I I think your position is instead

of judicial review Congress has to

resort to shutting down the government

or impeachment or dramatic steps of some

sort or another

solicitor general prar responds by

saying well I think that if those

dramatic steps would be warranted it

would be in the face of dramatic

abdication of statutory responsibility

by the executive so she just

acknowledged exactly what has happened

here and she acknowledged that is

exactly the moment at which the

impeachment power becomes very

relevant let there be any doubt on that

this stuff was settled not just in 1789

when we adopted the Constitution and

when the framers used the language that

they did but remember the framers were

not

operating in a vacuum they were not

writing on a blank slate they were

incorporating legal terminology that had

been in use for

centuries in fact a just a story in his

his tretis on the

Constitution discusses this very kind of

thing and explains in section 798

of his his famed Trea written not so

very long after the Constitution itself

was written but we got this stuff from

England that the the British knew what

impeachment meant and they understood

what would constitute a high crime or

misdemeanor in section

798 just his story acknowledges that

there was precedent there was an

understanding at the time of the

founding it recognized that you would

have an impeachable offense if among

other things a lord Admiral will would

have neglected the Safeguard of the seat

they didn't have a Homeland Security

secretary then not in America not in

Britain but this is really analogous

this is the exact same thing somebody

who had a duty to do a certain thing

under the law defiantly refused to do so

those are arguments we could have and

would have and should have heard today

had we had an actual trial had we been

permitted even to go into executive

session or even to go into Clos session

why close session we W want to have to

do it in Clos session session but you

see the standing rules of impeachment in

this body preclude us from having this

very kind of

debate so when Majority Leader Schumer

made this argument that the great shock

and surprise of all of

us we wanted to warn the body and have

this debate he wouldn't let us do that

the Democrats voted us down so that's

that's uh that's that's article one in a

nutshell article two of the Articles of

impeachment what do those get to well

those are interesting because those deal

with false statements knowingly false

statements repeatedly made by secretary

Alejandro mayorcas to

Congress to Congress as it's performing

its oversight responsibilities he lied

to Congress according to the allegations

of the Articles of impeachment in

article

two to my great shock I didn't look he

was dead wrong as to article one but if

he was dead wrong as to article one he

was dead than a doornail whatever that

means 10 times more dead as a doornail

as to Article 2 than he was to article

one why is that well because

they allege in Article 2 that secretary

mayorcas knowingly made false statements

knowingly making false statements is a

is a felony offense it's punishable as a

crime as a felony federal offense under

among other things 18 USC section

101 it's R routinely charged prosecuted

and is the basis for lots of convictions

for a felony of offense you can go to

prison for a very long period of time

for that now for Chuck Schumer to argue

Senator yes I just want to be able be

sure I understand

Senator I thought I heard mik

microphone I'm

mam I asked Senator Lee if he would

yield to a question uh I thought I

heard Senator Schumer argue

today that

lying to the United States

Congress was not a high crime or

misdemeanor and their felt for could not

be the

basis for uh an article of impeachment

did did did I hear that correct

correctly that is exactly what he said

that is exactly what he said when he

made this motion because he stood up and

he said I raise a a point of order that

impeachment Article 2 does not alleged

conduct that rises to the level of a

high crime or

misdemeanor

so even though lying to the United

States Congress is a

felony under the precedent that the

majority leader and our Democratic

colleagues established it's not a high

crime or misdemeanor is that what we did

that is precisely what the president

established today stands for that is we'

effectively by this vote that the

Democrats forced through not even

allowing us to debate this and this is

why I raised a point of order on or this

is why I I made a motion that we go into

Clos session to discuss this because

we've Now set a precedent that

effectively very arguably effectively

immunizes from

impeachment making a false statement to

Congress can I may I ask one more uh yes

yes please

well I'm trying to

follow the the Senate Majority Leader

logic what do you have to do to get

impeached now I mean a felony is not

sufficient what's above a

felony well let's

see obviously U spreading what they deem

misinformation uh on the internet might

be a felony uh I I I suppose at some

point but it but but it takes as I

understand it Senator you're a legal

scholar it takes more than a felony now

a high crime or misdemeanor yeah I

mean it takes more what's on second I I

don't understand any of this and I'm

very very worried and would like your

thoughts or or others thoughts about the

president that our Democratic colleagues

in their haste to sweep this under the

rug may have established the from

Louisiana yield for an adjunct question

to his question with pleasure so the law

says that lying to Congress is a

felony since we're no longer using

impeachment as a means to address

someone who's lying to Congress how does

Congress prosecute or

address someone who deliberately

lies to Congress now that the Senate has

swept away through this precedential

action today the opportunity to use

impeachment for that purpose thank you

yeah I'd love to respond to that point

briefly if I could the what we've done

is to effectively immunize this or

against impeach ability immunized making

false statements and and going back to

the original question

I don't know maybe aggravated first

deegree murder with uh heinous atrocious

and cruel conduct as aggravators maybe

that's still a high crime or misor that

that that remains to be seen but keep in

mind particularly with the the fact that

they already set aside article one and

they've already said that that's out of

bounds as well for impeach ability the

Supreme Court has said pretty much

nobody has standing to address that what

are we left with and getting getting

back to the uh to the question from

Senator

lumus this is a phenomenally dangerous

precedent to have set here specifically

with regard to false statements because

what does that do to our oversight

hearings where we we rely routinely on

testimony provided under oath by cabinet

secretaries and other Administration

officials what does that do what

incentive structure does that create

what perverse incentives does that

create for them to lie with the senator

yes are you aware here's a question are

you aware of the fact that President

Clinton was impeached and one of the

charges against him was lying under oath

in a civil lawsuit are you aware of that

yes okay so you can be impeach for lying

under oath in a civil lawsuit but

apparently you can't be impeached for

lying to Congress about how you do your

job so here's what I I'll give Senator

Schumer the benefit of the doubt Senator

Ken he's saying that the fact pattern

here apparently doesn't rise to the

level of high crime or misdemeanor that

that we don't have a situ it's a policy

disagreement we've taken a policy

disagreement in the house and tried to

turn it into impeachment well here's a

question for you uh Senator Lee are you

aware of the fact that two days ago two

days ago uh secretary marus was asked

about the parole of the man alleged to

kill to have killed Lake and rally Mr

ibera why was he paroled and how how he

was

paroled under the parole statute 212

D5 there's two ways parole can be

granted unique humanitarian need

circumstance your mother's dying

something's going on bad you need to get

into the country on a temporary basis or

special benefit to the United States

that means you're a witness in a

probably cartel

trial those are the only two reasons you

can be

paroled and two days ago no yesterday

secretary Marcus said he did not know

why Mr bear was paroled which one of the

two was it this was a question from

Congressman Bishop he said I didn't know

at the same time he said I didn't didn't

know I had the file and it

says subject was paroled due to

detention capacity at the central

processing center in El Paso

Texas in the file he was pared because

they didn't have any space for

him Senator

Schumer this is

illegal the Secretary of Homeland

Security cannot just add a condition to

a statute

the statute doesn't allow you to give

parole because you're

full and the reason this man was given

parole is not because of the statutory

requirements because we'd run out of

space because we got more illegal

immigrants than we can handle and the

rest is history he gets paroled he goes

to New York he gets convicted of a crime

he goes to Georgia and is's accused of

murdering this

lady seems to me that would be something

we should argue over as to whether or

not you should lose your job because you

got a statutory requirement limiting

your authority to parole people and in

your own file exhibit a you paroled him

because the place was full this happened

two days

ago so this gives kangaroo courts a bad

name this is a fraking joke we have a

nation under Siege 1.9 million people

have been paroled are you telling me

they do an individual analysis on all

the people in February 2023 no November

2023 I asked him secretary Marcus do you

do a case-by case analysis Senator we

comply with the law sir you're telling

me of all the 240,000 the ones in front

of us you determine they meet the

criteria of urgent humanitary need or

significant public benefit and he said

yes this was in November under oath to

me when I question I don't believe you I

don't believe you're doing an individual

analysis on this stuff you're doing

blanket parole and you're paper whipping

this stuff it turns

out he gave false testimony to the

Congress whether he lied or he's just

doesn't know what he's doing I don't

know you should be impeached either way

if you don't know what you're doing you

should be kicked out cuz you don't know

what you're doing but the man that we're

talking about is the one charged with

murdering this young lady who is going

on a jog if that's not important to the

American people to find out how that

happened and should somebody be held

responsible what the hell is you can

talk about why we impeach Trump and

Clinton was it worthwhile did it matter

was it all political you cannot say this

is not important to say that how we're

doing he's doing his job is not

important to the American people tell

that to the Riley family this is not an

academic

debate the policies of this

Administration being carried out by

Secretary of my orus are illegal the man

charged with killing lak and rally was

illegally released into this country by

DHS that should be something we argue

about in the the Senate as to whether or

not you keep your job it's been swept

under the rug there will be an election

in November this is the only chance you

have to get this right to the American

people we had a chance today to hold

somebody accountable finally for all the

rape and the murder and the drugs the

largest loss of life in America is

fentol coming through the border for

young people how many more people have

to be died die raped or murdered before

somebody's held

accountable we had a chance here and our

Democratic friends swept it under the

rug because they're more concerned about

the November election than protecting

the American people and this is a sad

day for the