By Steve Neavling

A Texas congressman filed articles of impeachment against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, arguing he broke the law over his handling of the border crisis. 

U.S. Rep. Pat Fallon is the second Republican in less than a year to file impeachment articles against Mayorkas. 

“Secretary Mayorkas has violated the law and … implemented policies that undermine law enforcement activities at our southern border,” Fallon said in a statement emailed to The Center Square. “From perjuring himself before Congress about maintaining operational control of the border to the infamous ‘whipgate’ slander against our border patrol agents, Secretary Mayorkas has proven time and time again that he is unfit to lead the Department of Homeland Security. His willful actions erode our immigration system, undermine border patrol morale, and imperil American national security. He must be removed from office.”

Fallon’s resolution claims Mayorkas committed “high crimes and misdemeanors.” The three articles allege Mayorkas violated federal law, lied to Congress and slandered Border Patrol agents. 

During Mayorkas’ time in office, more than 5.5 million people have “crossed our southern border,” including 98 people on the terrorist watch list, the resolution states. 

“Secretary Mayorkas has presided over a 180% increase in encounters at the southern border” compared to the previous administration, Fallon said.

The chances of this going anywhere are highly unlikely considering 2/3 of the U.S. Senate would have to vote to remove him.

By Steve Neavling

Kevin McCarthy, the top Republican in the U.S. House, on Tuesday threatened to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas if he doesn’t resign. 

The Republicans will have a majority in the House next year. 

At a news conference near the border in El Paso, Texas, McCarthy said he supports impeachment because of the record-high border crossings, Reuters reports.

“Our country may never recover from Secretary Mayorkas’ dereliction of duty,” McCarthy told reporters. “This is why today, I am calling on the secretary to resign.”

“If Secretary Mayorkas does not resign, House Republicans will investigate every order, every action and every failure (to) determine whether we can begin (an) impeachment inquiry,” he said.

DHS spokesperson Marsha Espinosa dismissed McCarthy’s call. 

 “Secretary Mayorkas is proud to advance the noble mission of this Department, support its extraordinary workforce, and serve the American people,” Espinosa said. “He has no plans to resign.”

By Steve Neavling

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said Republicans may try to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. 

McCarthy made the statement Monday during a visit to the southern border, The Hill reports. 

“This is his moment in time to do his job,” McCarthy said. “But at any time if someone is derelict in their job, there is always the option of impeaching somebody.”

Mayorkas is scheduled to testify before the House on Wednesday and Thursday. 

Republicans are opposed to lifting Title 42, which has allowed the U.S. to deny asylum-seekers a hearing.

The Biden administration said it plans to lift Title 42 on May 23. 

Mayoraka’s “first response to us should be, ‘We should not lift Title 42,’ ” McCarthy said. “They’re not prepared to protect, and we cannot sustain what will happen to this nation.” 

Although Democrats have a slim majority in the House, that could change in the November mid-terms, which would make impeachment far more likely. 

The writer, an FBI agent for 31 years, retired as resident agent in charge of the Ann Arbor office in 2006.

By Greg Stejskal
On March 10, 1975, I reported to the Department of Justice Building in Washington, D.C. — “Main Justice” — to be sworn in as a FBI special agent with my fellow new agents. In a large room that was used for the secret trial of the Nazi saboteurs during World War II, I raised my right hand and took the oath that every agent takes:

“I (my name) do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

The Constitution prescribes a similar oath for the president in Article II.

Unlike those Nazi saboteurs who swore an oath to the Fuhrer, we swore allegiance to the concept that we are a country of laws, and no man is above the law. We would not be taking an oath of fealty to anyone. In fact during the Revolution, those serving in the Continental Army not only pledged allegiance to the United States, but specifically denounced any allegiance to King George III.

For me what followed was an almost 32-year career investigating and prosecuting violations of federal laws. I had the good fortune to be involved in a number of high-profile cases, and it was a rewarding career.

So when I watched the recent impeachment hearing, I had a somewhat unique perspective.

Most people didn’t have the time to watch the hearings. Others  prejudged them as a hoax or a witch hunt.

Being retired, I did have time and tried to view the hearings objectively. (Full disclosure: I’m a lifelong Republican.)

I’m not going to recount the evidence or try to make a case for or against impeachment although I thought the evidence was compelling and creditable. But what especially troubled me were the personal attacks on the witnesses by the president. Most of the witnesses were career foreign service officers. All of whom took an oath to support and defend the Constitution.

No right to publicly disparage

The third public witness was Marie Yovanovitch, the former ambassador to Ukraine and a career foreign service officer. She was removed as ambassador by President Trump. In the now infamous, “perfect,” July 25 call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Trump characterized Ambassador Yovanovitch as “bad news.”

Whilee Yonanovitch was testifying Nov. 15 at the congressional hearing on national TV, President Trump tweeted:

“Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad. She started off in Somalia, how did that go? Then fast forward to Ukraine, where the new Ukrainian President spoke unfavorably about her in my second call with him. It is a US President’s absolute right to appoint ambassadors.”

It is the president’s “absolute right” to appoint and/or remove an ambassador, but I don’t believe the president has any kind of right to publicly disparage a career foreign service officer with an outstanding reputation and stellar career. Leaving aside the issue of whether his tweet constituted witness intimidation.

On Nov. 19, Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman and Jennifer Williams testified. Jennifer Williams is a veteran State Department official who has served as a special advisor to Vice President Mike Pence on European and Russian affairs.

Before her testimony, President Trump again took to twitter saying, she [Williams] should read the transcripts of the July 25 call and another one that took place in April. “Then she should meet with the other Never Trumpers, who I don’t know and mostly never even heard of and work out a better presidential attack!”

Read more »

By Steve Neavling

ticklethewire.com

The FBI requested an interview with the whistleblower who helped initiate the impeachment inquiry into President Trump and Ukraine.

An agent in the Washington Field Office sought the interview last month by reaching out to the CIA analyst’s attorney, according to sources who spoke with Yahoo News, the Associated Press and The New York Times.

It wasn’t clear why the FBI wanted to interview the whistleblower, and the interview never happened.

One of the attorneys for the whistleblower declined media interviews, as did the FBI.

Yahoo News reports that top FBI officials were divided on whether to get involved. But it wouldn’t be unusual for the bureau to investigate allegations of wrongdoing within the federal government.

An interview could impact the ongoing impeachment inquiry.

By Steve Neavling

ticklethewire.com

Much of evidence collected during special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation has remained secret, but that could change as the impeachment inquiry continues.

On Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit is expected to consider whether the grand-jury materials from the investigation should be released to the House Judiciary Committee.

The three-member panel is set to consider a lower-court’s ruling that called for the release of evidence that the House Committee says is critical to determining whether President Trump should be impeached, The Washington Post reports.

The Justice Department argues the redacted materials cited in the Mueller report should not be released because the impeachment proceeding are not “judicial.”

House lawyers argued in court filings that the material is important to “aid the House in determining whether the President committed impeachable offenses, including attempted obstruction of the Special Counsel’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election and solicitation of Ukrainian interference in the 2020 Presidential election.”

By Steve Neavling

ticklethewire.com

The FBI is investigating death threats leveled against the CIA whistleblower whose complaint prompted the U.S. House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry.

Since the whistleblower’s identify is still anonymous, the threats were sent to the legal team representing the CIA official, a person with direct knowledge of the matter told the New York Daily News.

Several of the death threats mentioned executing and shooting the CIA informant.

One email sent to the legal team says, “The whistleblower should be shot.”

Another person wrote, “In Putin’s country, they would execute this person.”

According to the source, the FBI is taking the threats “incredibly seriously.”

President Trump has turned up the hateful rhetoric directed at the whistleblower, calling him a “partisan operative,” “spy,” and “never Trumper.”

“Sounding more and more like the so-called Whistleblower isn’t a Whistleblower at all,” Trump tweeted last month.

By Steve Neavling

ticklethewire.com

Former FBI Director James Comey sees a silver lining in a Trump presidency.

“I think our country is being stress-tested now. And I actually believe our current president has illuminated things for us that we were taking for granted,” Comey told University of Chicago law students Tuesday, the Chicago Tribune first reported.

“I think he is accomplishing, without intending to, a shrinking of the presidency, which I think is … closer to the design of the founders, and the energizing of the Congress and the courts that hasn’t happened in a couple of decades,” Comey said.

The former FBI director said over the weekend that he supports the impeachment inquiry, saying, “If the news accounts are accurate, the president engaged in a shocking abuse of power.”

While Comey didn’t mention the impeachment at the University of Chicago, he said truth is the “touchstone” of American values.

“I see good things happening as a result of what he’s doing,” Comes said. “I see people say we have a constitutional crisis. No. I don’t think so. I see the design working. It’s a nerve-wracking stress, but I see it working.”