DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Cuckoo Democrats And What They Have Become Pt 4

Can you tell me what the charges were? And do they meet the standards for an impeachment?

Trumped up and revenge politics.

Yes. As soon as you tell me ONE THING Mayorkas did in 3+ years to address the border crisis.

He spent THREE YEARS telling us the border was secure while millions crossed it. He spent THREE YEARS doing absolutely nothing.

I'll wait... patiently.

What’s truly a high crime and misdemeanor, is MAGA republicans bowing to trump and shooting down the bi partisan border bill.

A swing and a miss... at a ball in the dirt.

Maybe. Still proving republicans don’t want to solve the problem either.

Riiiiight.

Because keeping the border open solves the problem.

Strike two.

I'll admit that the border is a topic where I've been more of a reader than a participant, mostly due to my own ignorance on the topic. I did see where the Republicans did vote against the border deal, though. Was that the case, and if so, why?

Honest questions. From my research, everything looks obfuscated depending on the news sources.

You don't have to wait. If what you say is TRUE. and I don't think it is. Him being ineffective at his job is NOT an impeachable offense?

Now,, It is your turn to answer my question. What High Crimes or Misdemeanore did he commit.

Oh, by the way, that was a VERY feeble attempt to deflect.,, as you can see, it was totally ineffective.

I think pretty much everyone has been ineffective when it comes to the border. You name it, whoever, has been ineffective. Dems, Republicans, Mayorkas, all of Congress, Biden, Trump, whoever.

This impeachment reeks of the House going for political points because I highly doubt anything comes out of it in the end. I think I'm more curious as to why Congress can't pass legislation to actually do something proactive, for once. I'm actually not even sure, has this Congress passed any meaningful legislation during this term? It appears Revenge Politics has been priority number one for several Congressional terms now.

Does not matter much at all, the Senate will not vote to remove.

Which has nothing to do with high crimes or misdemeanors. Can you name the actual charge that amounts to an impeachable offense? Please try to stay on topic.

Oh [censored], that's literally the funniest thing that's been posted in weeks!

Here you go, let me know if you want more...

There are two primary grounds justifying this historic act by Congress. First, Mr. Mayorkas willfully refused to comply with the law, blatantly disregarding numerous provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Though that law contains several detention mandates, Mr. Mayorkas directed the release of millions of inadmissible aliens into the country. He abused the statute allowing for parole on only a case-by-case and temporary basis and oversaw more than 1.7 million paroles. He created categorical parole programs contrary to the statute. In the interior, he directed Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel not to detain most illegal aliens, including criminals. In his September 2021 enforcement guidance, the secretary directed that unlawful presence in the country was no longer sufficient grounds for removal, and that criminal convictions alone weren’t enough to warrant arrest. This guidance was contrary to the law.

Second, Mr. Mayorkas breached the public trust, both by violating his statutory duty to control the border and by knowingly making false statements to Congress. Under oath, he claimed to have operational control of the border, as defined by the Secure Fence Act, only to say later that he never made such a claim. He even testified that “the border is no less secure than it was previously”—a demonstrable lie. Mr. Mayorkas has also obstructed congressional oversight, forcing the committee to issue two subpoenas for documents, which are still unfulfilled.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-we...utive-branch-can-t-defy-the-law-1dc83d55

I guess my biggest question is how will his impeachment actually help to secure the border?

So you enjoy doing what you say is so horrible when other people do it and that some how makes it acceptable for you to do? Got it.

Let's try again. What is it Mayorkas has actually done that rises to the threshold required for impeachment. ie... High crimes or misdemeanors.

It won't. It's just another example of how 2024 will go. It's another sign that owning the libs is their primary goal. I call it "Election 2024. Electile Dysfunction."

That's true. Take one ineffective libtard out, and another ineffective libtard will be replace him.

At least you won't be replacing him. That's a win/win for everyone.

Asinine useless GOPers.

Just like EVERYTHING GOPers DO, it won’t fix anything; just making ish worse is the GOPer way.

While I suppose your logic could be correct that Mayorkas would be replaced with someone similar, I see it as there wouldn't even be a chance to replace him as it will almost assuredly die in the Senate hearings. Then what? I think I would just prefer that Congress actually try to legislate fixing the issue rather than spend its time focusing on useless pwning that will backfire.

BTW, Cuckoo Dems keep stacking W’s in the era of Trump. Thinking about the current trends, if Trump hangs around controlling the right but out of office for the next 4-8 years, dems could hold 75% or more of all elected positions. That would be damn near utopic, finally silencing MAGA GOPer ish for the long haul.

Yes. They turned it down because it could be best described as farcical. It kept the border open to 5000 people per day under the premise that they would build an infrastructure to process them faster... and even that sham of a solution that is in no way a solution... could have been better conceived by a bumblebee.

The Independent involved wrote the whole thing. When questioned on how they would possibly process 5000 people per day her response was (not verbatim) "Well, right now we only have 30 beds. Our plan is to build a facility with 50 more beds."

So lets do the math, right now there are so many people crossing that you can't process anybody. But with 80 beds instead of 30, you will be able to process all of them.

We should just send these geniuses to every flood... with a teaspoon and a five-gallon bucket.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_Donald_Trump (It's a long read )

GOP talking point to a T. Both republicans and Democrats came to a sound, bi partisan bill. We can't have that. You still don't believe what Lankford said about the bill do you?

The three main negotiators on the Senate bill — Republican Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma, Independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut — have all pushed back on criticism of the bill. They emphasize that it would keep more people out instead of allowing more people to come in — and that migrants would not be able to apply for asylum at all if illegal border crossings reach certain numbers.

The policy is similar to one first used by Trump. Known as Title 42, it justified the quick expulsion of migrants from the country in the name of stopping the spread of COVID-19.

Lankford has repeatedly emphasized that the emergency authority “is not designed to let 5,000 people in, it is designed to close the border and turn 5,000 people around.”

After meeting with Republicans in the Capitol Monday evening, Lankford told reporters that people understand it once he explains it, “but it’s been said wrong so many times that people immediately just go back to, ‘this lets 5,000 people in a day,’ which is just factually wrong, but if you say it enough, it just sounds true.”

After meeting with Republicans in the Capitol Monday evening, Lankford told reporters that people understand it once he explains it, “but it’s been said wrong so many times that people immediately just go back to, ‘this lets 5,000 people in a day,’ which is just factually wrong, but if you say it enough, it just sounds true.”

At the same time, Lankford signaled openness to tweaking the bill as Republicans have lined up against it.

Sinema noted that many of those people are now released into the country under current law. “We are giving tools to this administration and future administrations to actually gain control of the border,” she said.

Murphy posted on X: “This line of attack (the bill “accepts 5,000 illegal immigrants a day”) is just made up bad faith nonsense.”

https://apnews.com/article/border-b...-senate-189ee196093a0dbfb1d522e2d552e31a

Trump is a criminal. He should have been impeached AND REMOVED. Any patriot can see he’s a traitor, as well. It’s not a sound argument nor comparison.

Actually I believe exactly what he said about it... in December.

Sen. Lankford: WH Isn't Offering Enough on Border Deal

Funny how none of that language changed but it suddenly became a good bill.

Things that make you go "hmmm".


Call it bipartisan all you want because there was a weak republican in the room. The deal was still 100% trash that did nothing to address the immediacy of the crisis.

So you mean while the negotiations were still ongoing and it wasn't finalized? The deal wasn't finalized until Feb. 4th. So you believe what he said about the bill in December before it was finalized but not what he said about it after it was finalized. That I believe.

Aaaand, straight over your head.

Here's my surprised look: 🫨

Yet you actually have no idea of what did or didn't change in the negotiations from December until February 4th. If everything had been worked out in December the negotiations would have ended then. Speaking of straight over your head.

Yes I do. I CAN READ.

The article stated the problem and the language of the bill showed that problem was not resolved.

You either:

Did not read even one paragraph of the article.
Have no capability of reading comprehension.

This is all it says about that....


That has nothing to do with anything Lankford said and in no way says provisions weren't changed from December until February. The same man and his cronies Lankford has explained have been mirespresenting what's contained in this bill all along is still who you have decided to listen to.

This appears to be a whatabout, however, I do think the first of the impeachments was dumb. The second I thought made sense, in light of J6. I think it would have been smart for Republicans to have looked for a way to keep him out of office. We wouldn't have the drama that we're having right now with all the 2024 nonsense, and I think Haley would probably with the Gen Elec to be honest. It also had more of a chance of success. Most of it boiled down to McConnell agreeing as to the grounds for impeachment, and it being an impeachable offense, just that he was already out of office. I think he whipped the votes on that notion.

Actually, that shows that the effort to impeach, for numerous reasons, were non-stop and started before he even took office.

Sure, it's a whatabout. 80% of every thread is a "whatabout Trump", I figured I would turn the tables. Particularly since you flip the "congress should just concentrate on fixing something" script when they spent an entire administration playing "Let's get Trumpy!"

I mean, didn't Pelosi propose impeaching him over suggestion that Hunter Biden was involved in shady business dealings? I'd like to go back and see if I could find a two week span when there wasn't discussion over impeaching Trump. j/s

But now that's it's actually been left in the hands of the court system like it is for the rest of us mere mortals you would think people may understand why. But I guess not.

Good answer.

It should be. A proven perpetual liar facing 91 counts should make it obvious he was crooked before he was president, while he was president and since leaving the presidency. But the "They've always been out to get him" crowd can't seem to see it.

Carry trump’s water, arguing his case, and hating all things dem… and you wonder why we talk about you the way we do.