Daily Freeman (Kingston, NY)

Crisis! Crisis! Crisis! Oh, never mind.

- Dana Milbank’s column is distribute­d by the Washington Post. Reach him at dana.milbank@washpost.com.

When House Speaker Mike Johnson invited President Biden to give his

State of the Union address on the unusually late date of March 7, people were puzzled.

Now, the mystery can be revealed. House Republican­s delayed the State of the Union so they could use the time to foment a state of disunion.

After the Supreme Court last month sided with the Biden administra­tion in a dispute with Texas over border barriers, Rep. Chip Roy (R-Tex.) asserted that the high court’s order “is unconscion­able and Texas should ignore it.” Never mind that two conservati­ve justices joined in the order. Roy suggested that an appropriat­e response would be to “tell the court to go to hell.”

Reacting to the same ruling, Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.) sounded a call to arms, posting on social media that “the feds are staging a civil war, and Texas should stand their ground.”

And Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), nearing the one-year anniversar­y of her secessioni­st call for “a national divorce,” announced: “Now the Biden [administra­tion] is at WAR with Texas.”

House Republican­s continued the disunion theme this week, staging a news conference and a hearing to encourage Texas to fight the administra­tion — and the Supreme Court. Rep. Brian Babin (R-Tex.), implying treason by the Biden administra­tion, praised his state because it “stood its ground against an invasion and an administra­tion that clearly wants the opposing forces to win.” And an earthy Rep. Randy Weber (R-Tex.) said of the Supreme Court: “Maybe we ought to tell them to go butt a stump.”

It’s not just words. These dime-store confederat­es are actively sabotaging the government they serve — by blocking it from mounting an effective response to the historic surge of migrants along the southern border.

Back in October, Biden requested $13.6 billion in emergency funding for border protection, including the hiring of 1,300 additional Border Patrol agents and 1,600 asylum officers, as well as more funds to counter fentanyl smuggling. Because of Republican­s’ objections, Congress still hasn’t approved a penny of it.

And now, even as House Republican­s wail about a “crisis” and an “invasion” at the border, they are mobilizing to kill a bipartisan deal emerging in the Senate to reform asylum claims and to beef up border security — regarded as the toughest immigratio­n legislatio­n in decades. Biden says he would “shut down the border right now” if given the authoritie­s in the proposal.

Instead of declaring victory and embracing the legislatio­n they have long demanded, House Republican­s are moving to impeach the administra­tion’s lead negotiator on the proposal — Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas — on charges so flimsy they do not identify a crime of any kind.

In lieu of allegation­s of high crimes or misdemeano­rs, the impeachmen­t articles, approved early Wednesday by the House Homeland Security Committee, charge that Mayorkas “terminated asylum cooperativ­e agreements” with Central American countries. There’s just one problem with this: Secretary of State Antony Blinken is the one who terminated those.

The articles further charge that Mayorkas “willfully refused to comply with the detention mandate” in the Immigratio­n and Nationalit­y Act. In fact, that standard has never been met in the decades it has existed — because Congress has never provided the funds.

And the articles propose impeachmen­t because Mayorkas “terminated contracts” for President Donald Trump’s border wall. Congress’s own investigat­ive arm blessed the legality of the border wall “pause,” which, in any event, was Biden’s policy, not Mayorkas’s.

Underlying the slipshod articles is this fundamenta­l absurdity: House Republican­s plan to impeach Mayorkas next week for “failure to enforce the law” at the border — while at the same time loudly encouragin­g Texas to ignore the law at the border, as well as the highest court in the land.

House Republican­s’ usual legal allies have turned against them in their capricious attempt to impeach a Cabinet secretary for the first time in 148 years. Alan Dershowitz, Michael Chertoff and The Wall Street Journal editorial page have all criticized the Mayorkas impeachmen­t, and even Jonathan Turley, House Republican­s’ all-purpose witness, has said there is no “cognizable basis here for impeachmen­t.”

In fact, there is only one, non-cognizable basis for impeachmen­t, and that is Marjorie Taylor Greene.

She has been calling for Mayorkas’s impeachmen­t for 2½ years, raising money off the effort, and she twice tried to force snap impeachmen­t votes on the House floor last fall, until Republican leaders gave her a guarantee that they would schedule Mayorkas’s impeachmen­t.

This produced a pair of hearings by the Homeland Security Committee to fabricate a rationale for impeachmen­t.

At the first, on Jan.

10, Rep. Morgan Luttrell (R-Tex.) asked law professor Frank Bowman whether selling fentanyl that kills a lot of people could be “considered a high crime.”

“I’m unaware that the secretary has sold any fentanyl,” the professor replied.

The congressma­n then asked whether Bowman would “consider slavery a high crime.”

“Is there any evidence that Secretary Mayorkas has enslaved anyone?” the professor answered.

Thwarted, Luttrell abandoned his line of questionin­g. “This is getting a little bit more complicate­d than I thought it was going to be,” he said.

But the markup went on long enough — about 15 hours — to establish beyond a doubt that, despite their protests to the contrary, Republican­s were impeaching Mayorkas because they disagreed with Biden’s border policies.

Even if Mayorkas is impeached by the House, there is zero possibilit­y he would be removed by the Senate.

As with the border security bill that House Republican­s are now killing, the purpose isn’t to fix a problem. It’s to exploit one.

 ?? ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States