(WASHINGTON) — Special counsel Robert Hur has completed his investigation into classified documents found at a number of properties associated with President Joe Biden and is expected to release his final report “in the coming days,” sources familiar with the matter confirmed to ABC News.
No specific date has yet been set, the sources said. News of the report’s upcoming release was first reported by The Washington Post.
ABC News previously reported that the special counsel’s investigation found sloppiness and other mistakes in the handling of classified documents following Biden’s time in the Senate and his vice presidency — but that the improper handling of classified documents was more likely a mistake than a criminal act.
A spokesperson for special counsel Hur’s office declined to comment.
In late 2022, the White House told the National Archives that documents bearing classification markings had been discovered at the Penn Biden Center in Washington, D.C. — the location of Biden’s private office after his term as vice president expired in early 2017.
Biden’s personal attorney later informed investigators that additional classified records were identified in the garage of Biden’s Wilmington, Delaware, home — a development that led the Justice Department to appoint Hur as special counsel to investigate further.
In all, about 25 documents marked classified were found in locations associated with Biden.
(WASHINGTON) — In a stunning defeat, a Republican-led push to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas failed on Tuesday.
The final vote was 214-216. Four Republicans defected and joined all Democrats present in opposing the measure.
For a moment, the vote was tied at 215-215 before another Republican switched to vote against.
Speaker Mike Johnson announced the resolution had failed, to cheers from Democrats in the chamber.
Minutes later, Johnson suffered another stinging defeat when the House fell short of the votes needed to pass a stand-alone bill he had backed to provide aid to Israel.
The Mayorkas measure is likely to come up again. When asked by ABC News while leaving the chamber if he plans to bring up the vote again, Johnson responded, “Yes.”
During the session, Rep. Blake Moore, R-Utah, filed a motion immediately following the vote to reconsider after it failed. It is likely to be scheduled when Majority Leader Steve Scalise, who is receiving cancer treatment, is able to attend.
The articles of impeachment accuse Mayorkas, long the target of GOP attacks when it comes to immigration policy, of “willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law” and “breach of public trust” amid a surge in unauthorized migrant crossings.
A spokesperson for the DHS called the impeachment baseless and said that it should not have moved forward.
“If House Republicans are serious about border security, they should abandon these political games, and instead support the bipartisan national security agreement in the Senate to get DHS the enforcement resources we need. Secretary Mayorkas remains focused on working across the aisle to promote real solutions at the border and keep our country safe,” Mia Ehrenberg, DHS spokesperson, said in a statement.
The White House also spoke out against the efforts to impeach Mayorkas.
“Clearly there is bipartisan agreement that this baseless, unconstitutional impeachment stunt should fail. House Republicans ought to realize that extreme political stunts like this are a waste of time, and instead join the President, Secretary Mayorkas, and Republicans and Democrats who want to work together to deliver real solutions that actually strengthen border security,” Ian Sams, White House spokesperson for oversight and investigations, said in a statement.
Mayorkas has vigorously defended himself and the department, calling the allegations “baseless” and insisting it won’t distract from their work. Democrats have contended the impeachment effort is unconstitutional and politically motivated.
Speculation grew throughout the day as to whether Johnson had the votes for the measure to pass. Republicans have a razor-thin three-vote majority in the House, and two members of the conference had said ahead of time they were against impeaching Mayorkas.
Among the GOP defectors were Reps. Ken Buck of Colorado, Tom McClintock of California and Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin.
Lawmakers debated the impeachment resolution for just over two hours ahead of the vote.
Homeland Security Committee chairman Mark Green, R-Tenn., defended the committee’s yearlong probe into Mayorkas and said his actions are responsible for a border crisis that Democrats have “turned a blind eye” to.
“His refusal to obey the law has led to the death of our fellow citizens. And he no longer deserves to keep his job,” Green said of Mayorkas as debate began.
Rep. Bennie Thompson, the committee’s top Democrat, countered that the proceeding is a “sham.”
“House Republicans want to distort the Constitution and the secretary’s record to cover up their inability and unwillingness to work with Democrats to strengthen border security,” Thompson said. “It’s about Republican politics and subversion of the Constitution.”
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., suggested the GOP effort against Mayorkas has been to avenge former President Donald Trump, who was twice impeached by Democrats.
“Because when the puppet master Donald Trump says ‘jump,’ extreme MAGA Republicans respond, ‘How high?'” Jeffries said.
On the other side of the aisle, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, who has been tapped as one of the Republican impeachment managers, said it’s Democrats who are “in a quandary.”
“Either they must own the policies of murder and crime of American citizens, or they can admit Secretary Mayorkas has broken federal laws and vote to impeach Secretary Mayorkas,” Greene said.
One defector, Rep. Buck, explained why he is a no vote on impeachment in an op-ed published by The Hill on Monday. In it, he wrote he thinks Mayorkas will “most likely be remembered as the worst secretary of Homeland Security in the history of the United States” but didn’t believe his conduct amounted to the Constitution’s high bar of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
McClintock announced his decision in a 10-page memo released Tuesday morning, in which he also criticized Mayorkas, but said the impeachment effort is “bad politics and bad policy.”
“The problem is that they fail to identify an impeachable crime that Mayorkas has committed,” McClintock wrote. “In effect, they stretch and distort the Constitution in order to hold the administration accountable for stretching and distorting the law.”
Asked for his reaction to those in his party advising against impeachment, Johnson said he respects “everyone’s view on it” but he believes it’s a necessary step.
“There is no measure for Congress to take but this one,” he said at a news conference alongside other GOP leaders. “It’s an extreme measure. We do not take it lightly. I respect the conscience of everyone and how they vote.”
If the vote had succeeded, it would’ve marked just the second time in U.S. history a Cabinet official has been impeached. The issue would have then go to trial in the Democrat-controlled Senate, where a two-thirds majority vote would be needed to convict.
The vote on whether to impeach Mayorkas coincides with a fierce debate over a new bipartisan bill that would amount to the first major overhaul of the immigration system in years.
The measure, the product of months of behind-the-scenes negotiations among a bipartisan group of senators, is supported by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and President Joe Biden.
Mayorkas, who played a role in negotiations, praised the bill as “tough, fair, and takes meaningful steps to address the challenges our country faces after decades of Congressional inaction.”
But House Republican leaders, led by Johnson, have already deemed it dead on arrival if it gets past the Senate. Former President Donald Trump, looking to make immigration a top issue in the 2024 campaign, has also come out strong against the bill, calling it “ridiculous” and a “trap” for Republicans.
Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., criticized Republicans on both impeachment and the border bill as the House Rules Committee met Monday to mark up the Mayorkas resolution.
“Are you seriously going to come here and look us in the eye with a straight face and claim this is all about the border when you refuse to come together with Democrats and work on the border?” McGovern said. “No, you’d all rather advance this baseless, extreme, unconstitutional impeachment stunt. It’s really something else.”
House Rules Committee Chair Tom Cole, R-Okla., countered that Mayorkas was a “chief architect” of the border crisis and said the vote is about “accountability.”
“Secretary Mayorkas has refused to uphold his oath of office. If he will not do so, his duty, then unfortunately the House must do its constitutional duty,” Cole said during the markup.
The White House on Monday called the impeachment effort “unprecedented and unconstitutional.”
“Impeaching Secretary Mayorkas would trivialize this solemn constitutional power and invite more partisan abuse of this authority in the future,” according to a Statement of Administration Policy. “It would do nothing to solve the challenges we face in securing our Nation’s borders, nor would it provide the funding the President has repeatedly requested for more Border Patrol agents, immigration judges, and cutting-edge tools to detect and stop fentanyl at the border.”
(WASHINGTON) — A former State Department contracted officer responsible for diplomatic security was arrested Tuesday on charges that he breached the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.
Kevin Alstrup was charged with four misdemeanor offenses including entering and remaining in a restricted building, disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building, disorderly conduct in a Capitol building and parading, demonstrating or picketing in a Capitol building.
Alstrup was employed as a State Department diplomatic security officer at the time of the investigation when the FBI asked his supervisor for help confirming his identity, according an FBI affidavit.
The FBI determined Alstrup “is familiar with providing security and protection for high-ranking government officials or sensitive locations, like embassies.”
Alstrup is no longer employed by the State Department. An official said he had been providing uniformed officer services for the department as a third-party contractor.
In November, a former Trump administration State Department appointee was sentenced to nearly six years in prison for his role in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Frederico “Freddie” Klein was convicted of eight felonies including six assaults, civil disorder and obstruction of an official proceeding.
Prosecutors said he “waged a relentless siege on police officers” as he attempted to enter the Capitol with a large mob of rioters.
ABC News’ Shannon Crawford contributed to this report..
(WASHINGTON) — The House on Tuesday will vote on a Republican-led resolution to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas over his handling of the southern border.
The articles of impeachment accuse Mayorkas, long the target of GOP attacks when it comes to immigration policy, of “willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law” and “breach of public trust” amid a surge in unauthorized migrant crossings.
Mayorkas has vigorously defended himself and the department, calling the allegations “baseless” and insisting it won’t distract from their work. Democrats have contended the impeachment effort is unconstitutional and politically motivated.
A key question is whether the GOP will have the votes to pass it. Republicans have a razor-thin three-vote majority in the House, and two members of the conference have said they are against impeaching Mayorkas: Rep. Ken Buck of Colorado and Rep. Tom McClintock of California.
Lawmakers debated the impeachment resolution for just over two hours ahead of a vote set for later Tuesday.
Homeland Security Committee chairman Mark Green, R-Tenn., defended the committee’s yearlong probe into Mayorkas and said his actions are responsible for a border crisis that Democrats have “turned a blind eye” to.
“His refusal to obey the law has led to the death of our fellow citizens. And he no longer deserves to keep his job,” Green said of Mayorkas as debate began.
Rep. Bennie Thompson, the committee’s top Democrat, countered that the proceeding is a “sham.”
“House Republicans want to distort the Constitution and the secretary’s record to cover up their inability and unwillingness to work with Democrats to strengthen border security,” Thompson said. “It’s about Republican politics and subversion of the Constitution.”
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., suggested the GOP effort against Mayorkas has been to avenge former President Donald Trump, who was twice impeached by Democrats.
“Because when the puppet master Donald Trump says ‘jump,’ extreme MAGA Republicans respond, ‘How high?'” Jeffries said.
On the other side of the aisle, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, who has been tapped as one of the Republican impeachment managers, said it’s Democrats who are “in a quandary.”
“Either they must own the policies of murder and crime of American citizens, or they can admit Secretary Mayorkas has broken federal laws and vote to impeach Secretary Mayorkas,” Greene said.
Earlier Tuesday, amid some speculation that GOP leaders could postpone or pull the measure due to vote numbers, Speaker Mike Johnson said they were forging ahead.
Asked if he had the votes, Johnson replied, “I think we will.”
One defector, Rep. Buck, explained why he is a no vote on impeachment in an op-ed published by The Hill on Monday. In it, he wrote he thinks Mayorkas will “most likely be remembered as the worst secretary of Homeland Security in the history of the United States” but didn’t believe his conduct amounted to the Constitution’s high bar of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
McClintock announced his decision in a 10-page memo released Tuesday morning, in which he also criticized Mayorkas, but said the impeachment effort is “bad politics and bad policy.”
“The problem is that they fail to identify an impeachable crime that Mayorkas has committed,” McClintock wrote. “In effect, they stretch and distort the Constitution in order to hold the administration accountable for stretching and distorting the law.”
Asked for his reaction to those in his party advising against impeachment, Johnson said he respects “everyone’s view on it” but he believes it’s a necessary step.
“There is no measure for Congress to take but this one,” he said at a news conference alongside other GOP leaders. “It’s an extreme measure. We do not take it lightly. I respect the conscience of everyone and how they vote.”
If the House does vote to approve the resolution, it would mark just the second time in U.S. history a Cabinet official has been impeached. The issue would then go to trial in the Democrat-controlled Senate, where a two-thirds majority vote would be needed to convict.
The vote on whether to impeach Mayorkas coincides with a fierce debate over a new bipartisan bill that would amount to the first major overhaul of the immigration system in years.
The measure, the product of months of behind-the-scenes negotiations among a bipartisan group of senators, is supported by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and President Joe Biden.
Mayorkas, who played a role in negotiations, praised the bill as “tough, fair, and takes meaningful steps to address the challenges our country faces after decades of Congressional inaction.”
But House Republican leaders, led by Johnson, have already deemed it dead on arrival if it gets past the Senate. Former President Donald Trump, looking to make immigration a top issue in the 2024 campaign, has also come out strong against the bill, calling it “ridiculous” and a “trap” for Republicans.
Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., criticized Republicans on both impeachment and the border bill as the House Rules Committee met Monday to mark up the Mayorkas resolution.
“Are you seriously going to come here and look us in the eye with a straight face and claim this is all about the border when you refuse to come together with Democrats and work on the border?” McGovern said. “No, you’d all rather advance this baseless, extreme, unconstitutional impeachment stunt. It’s really something else.”
House Rules Committee Chair Tom Cole, R-Okla., countered that Mayorkas was a “chief architect” of the border crisis and said the vote is about “accountability.”
“Secretary Mayorkas has refused to uphold his oath of office. If he will not do so, his duty, then unfortunately the House must do its constitutional duty,” Cole said during the markup.
The White House on Monday called the impeachment effort “unprecedented and unconstitutional.”
“Impeaching Secretary Mayorkas would trivialize this solemn constitutional power and invite more partisan abuse of this authority in the future,” according to a Statement of Administration Policy. “It would do nothing to solve the challenges we face in securing our Nation’s borders, nor would it provide the funding the President has repeatedly requested for more Border Patrol agents, immigration judges, and cutting-edge tools to detect and stop fentanyl at the border.”
ABC News’ Jay O’Brien and Luke Barr contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday will take up a historic case that could decide whether Donald Trump is ineligible for the 2024 ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
The provision, ratified after the Civil War to keep insurrectionists out of government, has rarely been invoked over the past 150 years and never before applied to a candidate for president.
It reads: “No person shall … hold any office, civil or military, under the United States … who, having previously taken an oath … as an officer of the United States … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.”
Only Congress, it adds, can remove the disqualification by two-thirds vote of both the House and Senate. It does not spell out who gets to decide when someone has “engaged in insurrection” or how.
Last year, a group of four GOP and two unaffiliated voters sued Colorado’s secretary of state to keep Trump off the state’s GOP primary ballot, citing his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump’s conduct amounted to engaging in “insurrection” in violation of Section 3.
Trump is now appealing that decision to the nation’s high court.
Here’s how it’s expected each side will present their respective arguments to the justices:
Trump’s case: Section 3 does not apply to him
Section 3 refers to an “officer of the United States” and Trump was not one. There are two oaths in the Constitution and he took the presidential oath, which is different. Presidents appoint “officers” of the U.S. The president is not explicitly mentioned in the amendment.
Trump did not “engage in insurrection.” He has not been charged with acts of insurrection much less convicted of a crime. He “repeatedly called for peace, patriotism and law and order.” A failure to act on Jan. 6, as some have alleged, is not the same as engaging in the conduct.
Only Congress can enforce Section 3. The law doesn’t spell out who decides when someone has “engaged in insurrection.” Each state can’t veto candidates based on their own assessments.
Section 3 creates a prohibition from “holding office” — not running for office. States can’t decide new upfront qualifications for being president.
The Constitution’s electors clause says legislatures, not courts, should govern elections and evaluate candidate qualifications. Colorado law doesn’t require the secretary of state to do so.
Colorado courts violated state law. They did not hold a hearing within five days of the complaint against Trump as required (it was 54 days). The court did not deliver findings of fact within 48 hours as required (it was 12 days). Reliance on testimony of a sociology professor who said Trump had spoken in “coded” language was hearsay. Voters who sued the Colorado secretary of state don’t have standing because the secretary of state has no authority to vet candidate eligibility under state law.
Colorado voters’ case: Trump incited an insurrection and Section 3 applies
Trump’s words and deeds “were the factual cause of and a substantial contributing factor to the attack.” After a five-day hearing, the trial court found Trump “intentionally organized and incited” insurrection. Those findings are entitled substantial deference. Even though Trump himself wasn’t violent, there is precedent for incitement as “engagement.” The First Amendment doesn’t protect incitement.
The presidency is an “office of the United States” as covered by Section 3. The Constitution refers to the presidency as an “office” 20 times. The “of the U.S.” phrase is meant to distinguish a position from a state. Trump is splitting hairs.
States have authority under the electors clause to run presidential elections. State officials can make subjective determinations about eligibility of candidates. A U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in 2012 from then judge and now Justice Neil Gorsuch said states could exclude a naturalized citizen from a presidential ballot because he was “constitutionally prohibited.” States also have power to decide presidential electors on their own terms.
Trump forfeited an electors clause challenge because he didn’t raise it in earlier proceedings. The U.S. Supreme Court should defer to state court interpretation of state law. As for the state court delays — in violation of legally mandated deadlines for ballot challenges — Trump had asked for more time in the case.
History of Section 3. The provision of the 14th Amendment was enacted as a measure of self-defense, targeting leaders of the rebellion. It deprives them of qualification for office but nothing else. It was immediately enforced by state courts in 1868.
Notable amici (friend of the court) filings
The National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee argues Colorado altered the qualifications for president and interfered with Congress’ sole prerogative to remove any Section 3 disqualification from a candidate. In effect, what Colorado has done is require that Congress address any alleged Section 3 disqualification before voters pick a candidate – but that is an error: Congress gets to decide when, and could do so after the election.
Colorado violates First Amendment rights of voters and political parties. It takes away a choice. There is no precedent for denying a candidate primary ballot access. The decision negates the possibility that between Election Day and Inauguration Day, a two-thirds vote of each chamber of Congress could cure Trump’s eligibility.
Colorado ignores precedent of “ineligible” candidates on the ballot becoming eligible by inauguration day when they “hold” office. See: Joe Biden running for Senate and winning at age 29 … turning 30 just before he was sworn in. Or, when Congress granted amnesty en masse to some former Confederates in 1867 who’d already won elections but not yet been seated.
The state court committed a clear error by directing the secretary of state to not list Trump on the ballot. In so doing, the court extended the Section 3 disability beyond “being” president to running for president. States cannot preemptively exclude candidates, interfering with Congress’ authority to decide whether or not to cure a Section 3 deficiency.
179 GOP members of Congress
The Colorado Supreme Court’s decision infringes on Congress’ powers. In part, they argue, because by allowing the enforcement of Section 3 without congressional authorization, candidates could face “abuse by state officials.” Colorado is also wrong because it deprives Congress the chance to remove a Section 3 “disability.”
Colorado’s definition of “engage in insurrection” is too malleable and expansive. The state court harbors a view that will lead to “widespread abuse of Section 3 against political opponents.”
(WASHINGTON) — The Senate’s bipartisan border deal is teetering on collapse Tuesday as many Republicans say they will block the procedural vote set for later this week — a frustrating loss for the negotiators who spent months fine-tuning the bill.
“I can’t believe this is happening. This is unbelievable,” Sen. Chris Murphy, one of the lead negotiators of the bill, said in a Senate floor speech Tuesday.
Murphy and other senators worked for months to negotiate the terms of the $118.28 billion bipartisan national security supplemental package, the text of which was released Sunday night. By Monday night, it was on the brink of collapse as fellow negotiator Sen. James Lankford acknowledged it didn’t have the votes for it advance in the Senate in a procedural vote on Wednesday.
“What the hell just happened?” Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat, said on the floor.
Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, in a floor speech on Tuesday, said he would delay the vote — but was skeptical it would make a difference. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said flat out that the bill is going nowhere.
In a closed-door meeting that lasted nearly 90 minutes Monday night, Republicans debated the merits of the 370-page national security supplemental, and whether or not to provide the necessary 60 votes to get to floor consideration of the bill during a key procedural vote on Wednesday.
A good chunk of the Senate Republican conference opposes this bill because they object to the policies in it. At least 19 have issued statements stating as much.
But many Senate Republicans, including those moderates who would likely be necessary to getting 60 votes to proceed during the upcoming test vote, left the meeting saying they won’t greenlight moving it forward — not because of policy — but because they don’t believe they’ve had sufficient time to review the technically complex border provisions.
“I think it’s fair to say everybody thinks that, you know, voting Wednesday is voting too soon,” said Sen. John Thune, the Republican Whip. “I think there’s a very real concern that there hasn’t been adequate time. And I think the Wednesday vote is going to be for most our members too early.”
In floor remarks Tuesday, Schumer lambasted Republicans for their plans to block the the bill from advancing during an upcoming procedural vote.
“After months of good faith negotiations, after months of giving Republicans many of the things they asked for, Leader McConnell and the Republican conference are ready to kill the national security supplemental package, even with the border provisions they so fervently demanded,” Schumer said.
Schumer said the GOP decision to reject the bill represents a “dramatic transformation in Republican thought.” He said Senate Republicans and House Speaker Mike Johnson have “moved the goal posts” on negotiations.
“This is the new Republican line on the border: It’s an emergency, but it can wait 12 months or until the end of time. What utter bunk,” Schumer said.
Schumer said he’d be comfortable delaying the vote — though he cast doubts on Republicans’ motives for wanting the vote postponed.
“I will even offer to delay that vote until some time on Thursday to give even more time for Senators to make up their mind, but I suspect they won’t accept even that offer because they don’t really want more time, they’re just using it as an excuse,” Schumer said.
On Tuesday afternoon, McConnell put the nail in the coffin: “It looks to me and most of our members that we have no real chance here to make a law.”
McConnell did not go after former President Donald Trump, who put immense pressure on Republicans to reject the deal, saying that the Border Patrol Council, which supported Trump, backed the bill.
“I think in the end, even though the product was approved by the Border Council that endorsed President Trump, most of our members feel that we’re not going to be able to make law here. And if we’re not going to be able to make a law, they’re reluctant to go forward,” McConnell said.
On Monday night, a number of moderate senators who would be needed to get to 60 votes said they would vote no on moving forward if the vote is held on Wednesday.
Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., said he’d be amenable to continuing to work on the bill, but will vote to block it from moving forward on Wednesday.
“I think we said to begin with we wanted time. I still think we want time,” Rounds said.
Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, agreed.
“Clearly a bill of this magnitude being brought to the floor in 48 hours is really rushing it, so that’s another element that we talked in there, which in my view is problematic,” Sullivan said.
Even Lankford may choose to vote against proceeding on Wednesday if the rest of his conference isn’t ready to move forward.
“I’m listening to the rest of the conference on this,” Lankford said. “If the conference is not ready to be able to move on it, there’s no reason for me to be able to vote on cloture. That’s not voting against the bill.”
Hours after the bill text was release Sunday, Speaker Mike Johnson shot it down, saying in a statement that the bill is “dead on arrival” and “even worse than we expected, and won’t come close to ending the border catastrophe the President created.”
Asked about Johnson’s comments, Lankford acknowledged the challenge of drawing such a quick conclusion of the robust bill.
“People are throwing all these great hyperboles out there before they’ve really had a chance to be able to read through it and to be able to go through,” Lankford told ABC News Senior Congressional Correspondent Rachel Scott. “It’s interesting — I’ve had folks saying, ‘Hey this is really technical, it’s going to take days or weeks to be able to read through it — yet within minutes or hours they were saying, ‘Hey, I oppose it because I’ve gone through it.'”
Senators did not give a clear read out of how much time they believed they’d need to consider this.
But several did say that any path forward would need to involve opportunities to offer amendments to the package.
ABC News’ Rachel Scott contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — The House on Tuesday will vote on a Republican-led resolution to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas over his handling of the southern border.
The articles of impeachment accuse Mayorkas, long the target of GOP attacks when it comes to immigration policy, of “willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law” and “breach of public trust” amid a surge in unauthorized migrant crossings.
Mayorkas has vigorously defended himself and the department, calling the allegations “baseless” and insisting it won’t distract from their work. Democrats have contended the impeachment effort is unconstitutional and politically motivated.
The impeachment resolution was read aloud by the House clerk and is being debated by lawmakers.
Homeland Security Committee chairman Mark Green, R-Tenn., kicked off the two-hour debate by defending the committee’s yearlong probe into Mayorkas and said his actions are “responsible for this historic crisis.”
“Today’s articles of impeachment outline exactly that a dramatic abdication of statutory authority by Secretary Mayorkas has occurred,” Green said.
Rep. Bennie Thompson, the committee’s top Democrat, slammed the proceeding as a “sham impeachment.”
“House Republicans want to distort the Constitution and the secretary’s record to cover up their inability and unwillingness work with Democrats to strengthen border security,” Thompson said. “It’s about Republican politics and subversion of the Constitution.”
A key question is whether the GOP will have the votes to pass it. Republicans have a razor-thin three-vote majority in the House, and two members of the conference have said they are against impeaching Mayorkas: Rep. Ken Buck of Colorado and Rep. Tom McClintock of California.
Amid speculation the vote could be postponed or even pulled, Speaker Mike Johnson told ABC News he is moving ahead with the resolution on Tuesday.
Asked if he had the votes, Johnson replied, “I think we will.”
Buck, explaining why he is a no vote on impeachment in an op-ed published by The Hill, said he thinks Mayorkas will “most likely be remembered as the worst secretary of Homeland Security in the history of the United States” but didn’t believe his conduct amounted to the Constitution’s high bar of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
McClintock announced his decision in a 10-page memo released Tuesday morning, in which he also criticized Mayorkas, but said the impeachment effort is “bad politics and bad policy.”
“The problem is that they fail to identify an impeachable crime that Mayorkas has committed,” McClintock wrote. “In effect, they stretch and distort the Constitution in order to hold the administration accountable for stretching and distorting the law.”
Asked for his reaction to those in his party advising against impeachment, Johnson said he respects “everyone’s view on it” but he believes it’s a necessary step.
“There is no measure for Congress to take but this one,” he said at a news conference alongside other GOP leaders. “It’s an extreme measure. We do not take it lightly. I respect the conscience of everyone and how they vote.”
If the House does vote to approve the resolution, it would mark just the second time in U.S. history a Cabinet official has been impeached. The issue would then go to trial in the Democrat-controlled Senate, where a two-thirds majority vote would be needed to convict.
The vote on whether to impeach Mayorkas coincides with a fierce debate over a new bipartisan bill that would amount to the first major overhaul of the immigration system in years.
The measure, the product of months of behind-the-scenes negotiations among a bipartisan group of senators, is supported by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and President Joe Biden.
Mayorkas, who played a role in negotiations, praised the bill as “tough, fair, and takes meaningful steps to address the challenges our country faces after decades of Congressional inaction.”
But House Republican leaders, led by Johnson, have already deemed it dead on arrival if it gets past the Senate. Former President Donald Trump, looking to make immigration a top issue in the 2024 campaign, has also come out strong against the bill, calling it “ridiculous” and a “trap” for Republicans.
Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., criticized Republicans on both impeachment and the border bill as the House Rules Committee met Monday to mark up the Mayorkas resolution.
“Are you seriously going to come here and look us in the eye with a straight face and claim this is all about the border when you refuse to come together with Democrats and work on the border?” McGovern said. “No, you’d all rather advance this baseless, extreme, unconstitutional impeachment stunt. It’s really something else.”
House Rules Committee Chair Tom Cole, R-Okla., countered that Mayorkas was a “chief architect” of the border crisis and said the vote is about “accountability.”
“Secretary Mayorkas has refused to uphold his oath of office. If he will not do so, his duty, then unfortunately the House must do its constitutional duty,” Cole said during the markup.
The White House on Monday called the impeachment effort “unprecedented and unconstitutional.”
“Impeaching Secretary Mayorkas would trivialize this solemn constitutional power and invite more partisan abuse of this authority in the future,” according to a Statement of Administration Policy. “It would do nothing to solve the challenges we face in securing our Nation’s borders, nor would it provide the funding the President has repeatedly requested for more Border Patrol agents, immigration judges, and cutting-edge tools to detect and stop fentanyl at the border.”
ABC News’ Jay O’Brien and Luke Barr contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — Former Republican presidential candidate Chris Christie, in his first interview since leaving the 2024 race last month, is addressing how a hot mic moment partially overshadowed the final moments of his campaign.
“I’ll tell you, George, it was a complete mistake,” Christie said in an exclusive interview with ABC News’ Good Morning America co-anchor George Stephanopoulos that aired on Tuesday.
Minutes before he told a room full of supporters that he was ending his bid for the White House, Christie was heard on the event’s livestream telling his New Hampshire state director that former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, one of his rivals, was “going to get smoked” and was “not up to this.”
Christie told Stephanopoulos that it was his son Andrew, who was watching from the Dominican Republic, who called and told him, “Hot mic! Hot mic! Hot mic!”
“It’s one of those moments I wish, quite frankly, hadn’t happened, just ’cause it was a distraction. But on the other hand, I didn’t say anything on the hot mic that I didn’t essentially say in the speech that I gave about 10 minutes later,” Christie said.
The next day, Haley called him, he said.
“It was a 45-second conversation. She told me, ‘I know it’s a personal decision to get in a race, and it’s a tough decision to get out. I heard everything you said last night, including the hot mic.’ And I said, ‘Uh-huh.’ And she said, ‘Well, good luck.’ And I said, ‘Good luck to you,'” Christie recounted.
“So she didn’t ask for an apology, you didn’t give one?” Stephanopoulos asked.
“No, there’s no apology warranted,” Christie said.
In his interview with ABC News, Christie, a former Trump supporter turned vocal critic, explained his decision to suspend his campaign just 13 days ahead of the primary in New Hampshire, where he had devoted all of his time and resources.
“We got to the point the Sunday before I dropped out of the race where we did our last — our last bit of polling came back. And it was clear to us that we couldn’t beat Donald Trump,” he said. “To me, once I became convinced I couldn’t beat him in New Hampshire, it was time to get out.”
Still hesitant on Haley
In his speech ending his campaign, Christie argued that Haley had been too reluctant to directly attack Trump, whom she has called an agent of chaos but also “the right president at the right time.”
But despite Haley deploying more direct attacks against Trump since he defeated her in New Hampshire, Christie said he doesn’t envision supporting her down the road — and risk her later endorsing Trump.
“I made a decision in 2016, the only time in my political career where I endorsed someone purely for political reasons, even though I had some misgivings, and that’s when I endorsed Donald Trump,” he said. “It was the biggest mistake I’ve made in my political career, and I’m just not gonna repeat that mistake for anybody.”
Christie said it was “hard … to say” if Haley still has a shot against Trump, but, “It doesn’t look like it,” given polling showing Trump some 30 points above her in her home state of South Carolina, which will hold the next big primary.
This, despite the fact that, according to Christie, “Trump will be more likely than not a convicted felon when he gets on the stage at the nominating convention in mid-July in Milwaukee.”
Looking back, Christie said he feels the entire primary was over the night of the first debate — last August — when the field didn’t do more to condemn that possibility.
“Because when they ask you, ‘Would you still support him if he was a convicted felon?’ — and six of the eight people raise their hands on that stage, what it says to the largest debate audience we were ever gonna have during the primary is, ‘His content is normal,'” Christie said.
Only he and former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson said they wouldn’t support Trump if Trump is convicted.
Trump has denied all wrongdoing and pleaded not guilty in his four criminal cases.
“The biggest frustration for me is that we have so many people in our party who complain about Donald Trump [privately], but none of them are willing to do the hard work that needs to be done to rid our party,” Christie said at another point in his interview with Stephanopoulos, adding that he feels they’re “afraid of him.”
What’s next for Christie?
When Christie votes in New Jersey’s primary in June, he anticipates skipping the presidential portion of his ballot, believing Trump will be the last one standing, he said.
He plans to do the same thing come the general election.
“The one thing I can tell you for sure is I don’t know what I’m gonna do in November. But I’m not voting for Donald Trump, under any circumstances,” he said.
“Assuming it’s the two of them and a handful of third-party candidates,” said Stephanopoulos, “isn’t any vote that’s not for Joe Biden a vote for Donald Trump?”
“In my state, my vote is not gonna matter a lick, OK?” Christie said.
“I don’t know who the full field’s gonna be yet. And there might be a No Labels candidate,” he added, referring to the outside group that is considering a bipartisan “unity” ticket to run against Trump and Biden.
Christie argued a strong Republican could chip away at Trump’s support.
Asked directly if No Labels had approached him about joining a ticket, after founding chairman Joe Lieberman said last month he was going to reach out, Christie said he had not — but didn’t rule out the possibility of saying yes.
“Well, what I’ve said in the past is that I’d have to see a path for anybody — not just me — but I think anybody who would accept that would need to see a path to 270, 270 electoral votes,” he said.
“If there was ever a time in our lifetime when a third-party candidate could make a difference, I think it’s now,” he said.
And while he feels Trump is a threat to democracy, he said Biden is “passed his sell-by date.”
Asked the advice he would give to those trying to defeat Trump, Christie said: “Replace Joe Biden. I just think that Joe Biden is probably the only major Democrat who Donald Trump could beat.”
Beating Trump has been Christie’s mission throughout the 2024 cycle, but he told Stephanopoulos that he couldn’t say whether he’ll succeed.
“I don’t know, George. But it won’t be for a lack of trying,” he said. “I can guarantee you that.”
(WASHINGTON) — The union that represents front-line Border Patrol agents supports the Senate immigration reform bill, saying the new authorities it gives agents to turn migrants away are a key step in the right direction.
That’s despite heavy opposition from House Republicans that might scuttle the effort — at least for the time being.
The National Border Patrol Council has previously endorsed Donald Trump for president and routinely takes hard-line positions on immigration enforcement.
“This is absolutely better than what we currently have,” National Border Patrol Council President Brandon Judd told ABC News.
When the new expulsion authorities are triggered, agents will work to quickly turn migrants back to Mexico. Judd said he was confident this new authority combined with more detention resources will reduce illegal crossings.
Further, additional resources for migrants who require processing will free up agents to remain on the front line.
“They’re able to do the job that they were supposed to do as far as protecting the American people and I think that they would feel much better about the job with this bill,” Judd said.
While supportive of the new compromise agreement, Judd said he also backs more restrictive measures.
(WASHINGTON) — Former Republican presidential candidate Chris Christie, in an exclusive new interview with ABC News about a month after he suspended his 2024 campaign, warned that if Donald Trump is reelected, his White House will face a “huge personnel problem” during a “vendetta presidency.”
“Let’s say that Donald Trump does win in November. What does a second term look like?” ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos asked Christie, in the former New Jersey governor’s first interview since suspending his presidential campaign, clips of which will air Tuesday on Good Morning America, GMA3 and ABC News Live Prime.
“Mayhem. Absolute mayhem,” Christie replied. “First off, people forget that in the first term, he got a lot of good people to work for him in that administration.”
Christie ticked through names of former Trump Cabinet members who, he said, brought strong experience but were fired or quit because of Trump, including former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, former Defense Secretary Mark Esper, former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, former Attorney General Bill Barr and retired Gen. John Kelly, a former White House chief of staff.
“Whether you agree with their policies, these are really solid, experienced people in government,” said Christie, whose third book, What Would Reagan Do?: Life Lessons from the Last Great President, is out Tuesday.
” I cannot imagine the crew that he’ll put together [in a second term],” Christie continued. “And he will do it with an eye much different than in ’16. In ’16, he was scared. He didn’t expect to win, and he was intimidated by the presidency when he first got there. He will not be this time.”
Christie, after also running for president in 2016, led Trump’s transition team but has since called his decision to support Trump a “mistake,” citing efforts to deny the validity of the 2020 election.
The former governor is now a vocal Trump critic, drawing fire from Trump as well, who has called him a “failed” leader and candidate. Trump has likewise attacked the track records of many of his former Cabinet members and senior aides after they left.
Christie told Stephanopoulos that he thinks Trump will not seek out capable people if he wins another four years in office.
“What he wants … are people who will just nod their heads, say yes and execute whatever his next rant will be. And so, one, it’ll be a huge personnel problem of people who have no business being in senior positions in the federal government,” Christie said. “And then secondly, I think we have to take him at his word. This is gonna be the vendetta presidency. This is gonna be, ‘I am your retribution.’ And I think he will use the levers of government to punish the people who he believes have been disloyal to him or to his approach.”
Trump has often talked about targeting his political enemies in campaign speeches, promising to “root out” opponents who “live like vermin.”
More recently, however, he has said, “We’re going to make the country so successful again, I’m not going to have time for retribution. And remember this: Our ultimate retribution is success.”
Top officials from the Trump campaign, meanwhile, dismissed reports last December about possible appointments in a second Trump presidency, calling them “unwanted distractions.”
