Speaker 1: These articles are the product of a.
Speaker 2: Deliberate, thoughtful, and fair investigation.
Speaker 1: There is no greater impeachable events than for an officer
Speaker 1: of the United States a violate their oaths.
Speaker 3: You have a short time coming.
Speaker 2: You can honorably resign or we are going to.
Speaker 1: Impeach you, and it's happening very very soon.
Speaker 2: On this vote, the ya's are two fourteen and the
Speaker 2: nay's are two sixteen.
Speaker 3: The resolution is not adopted.
Speaker 1: An attempt by the Republicans to impeach DH Secretary Mayorcis
Speaker 1: yesterday over the border craziness failed because a handful of
Speaker 1: Republicans voted no, among them Congressman Tom McClintock the fourth
Speaker 1: District of California. Tom's often been described as the gold
Speaker 1: standard for fiscal conservative and conservatism and Congress if that
Speaker 1: even exists anymore, And the congressman joins us, Now, Tom,
Speaker 1: how are you, sir?
Speaker 3: I'm doing fine. Thanks.
Speaker 1: I'd imagine you're hearing it loud from a lot of
Speaker 1: Republican voters for your vote against the impeachment of may Orcus.
Speaker 1: How dare you, sir? Why are you for open borders?
Speaker 1: That's the question.
Speaker 2: It's actually been fairly mild. We've only had two death
Speaker 2: threats so far, so I consider that a win.
Speaker 1: Good day. Yeah, So why were you no vote on
Speaker 1: impeaching the dh DHS secretary.
Speaker 2: Because that's not what impeachment is for. You know, I
Speaker 2: have nothing nice to say about Mayarcus. I think he
Speaker 2: is guillty of maladministration on a truly cosmic scale.
Speaker 3: But that is not grounds for impeachment. And we know
Speaker 3: that because maladministration was specifically.
Speaker 2: Considered by the Convention and rejected. Instead, they use the
Speaker 2: term high crimes and misdemeanors, and there's a very specific
Speaker 2: meaning to that, crimes that are related to the office.
Speaker 2: By dumbing down the standard for impeachment, you're opening up
Speaker 2: a Pandora's box that will be turned against conservatives on
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court, would be turned against the future Republican
Speaker 2: administration and cabinet the moment the Democrats take control, and
Speaker 2: there'll be nobody to stop them because the Republicans will
Speaker 2: now have signed off on this new and very different
Speaker 2: standard for impeachment. And the fact of the matter is,
Speaker 2: even if the Senate were to remove him, it changes
Speaker 2: nothing because he is simply carrying out the policies of
Speaker 2: this administration. You're not going to fix this by replacing
Speaker 2: one leftist official like may Orcus with say an Occasio Cortes.
Speaker 2: It only can be fixed by replacing the entire administration,
Speaker 2: and that can only be done by the American people
Speaker 2: at the ballot box.
Speaker 3: And I think they're coming around to that conclusion.
Speaker 1: I hadn't realized AOC was even on the short list
Speaker 1: with a terrifying notion. And I actually heard Mike Gollagher
Speaker 1: speaking on this topic and he said something very similar
Speaker 1: about swapping out one, you know, far left puppet for
Speaker 1: Biden for another one. What good would that do? But
Speaker 1: I want to nail this down in case people went
Speaker 1: over a potholer didn't quite follow it. It was the
Speaker 1: Constitutional Convention where the concept of impeachment was being discussed
Speaker 1: at length that you referred to when you said the Convention,
Speaker 1: and they looked at well, you're just bad at your
Speaker 1: job and you're not doing it, and they specifically rejected
Speaker 1: that right.
Speaker 3: Madison objected.
Speaker 2: Actually, the committee on eleven, on September fourth, issues a
Speaker 2: recommendation treason and bribery only.
Speaker 3: That's it. George Mason objected to that.
Speaker 2: On September the eighth, he says, well, there ought to
Speaker 2: be something more than that.
Speaker 3: He proposed maladministration.
Speaker 2: That's basically doing a lousy job, and may Yorks is
Speaker 2: certainly guilty of that. And it was Madison who stood
Speaker 2: up and said, wait a second. You go down this path,
Speaker 2: then you're making the president a minister of the Senate.
Speaker 2: That destroys the entire concept of the separation of powers,
Speaker 2: that's the central architecture of this constitution. And that's when
Speaker 2: they rejected maladministration doing a bad job and substitute for
Speaker 2: it high crimes and misdemeanors. Actually committing a crime relating
Speaker 2: to the office. That's the high and high crimes. You know.
Speaker 2: The example I use is Bill Clinton. He was definitely
Speaker 2: guilty of a crime perjury, but it was not a
Speaker 2: high crime, it was not related to his office. So
Speaker 2: he was unjustly impeached by the House. He was quickly
Speaker 2: acquitted by the Senate, and the American people made their
Speaker 2: displeasure with this partisan, one sided impeachment very clear at
Speaker 2: the polls. And it pains me to see the Republican
Speaker 2: Party making the same mistake again.
Speaker 1: Well, and you already mentioned this, but the concern would
Speaker 1: be that would be constantly impeaching these people. You would
Speaker 1: have impeached the whoever was Secretary of Health and Human
Speaker 1: Services when the Republicans had the House because you didn't
Speaker 1: like the way the Obama Care rollout went. You to
Speaker 1: impeach the Secretary of the Treasury because we're printing so
Speaker 1: much money. I mean, there'd be so many things all
Speaker 1: the time.
Speaker 2: That was Madison's point at the convention. At the moment,
Speaker 2: you have a president of one party and a Congress
Speaker 2: of the other.
Speaker 3: If you're going to have.
Speaker 2: A low standard like that, that's going to be a
Speaker 2: constant fixture now in our political life, and that's not
Speaker 2: going to go well for the country.
Speaker 3: It's not altogether complicated.
Speaker 1: And what an interesting way to illustrate it that the
Speaker 1: president would become a minister hired and fired by the Senate. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's that's a good illustration, just as.
Speaker 3: I was doing.
Speaker 2: And by the way, these are the same arguments that
Speaker 2: I made against the sham impeachments of Donald Trump twice
Speaker 2: in the House Judiciary Committee.
Speaker 3: And the same people who cheered.
Speaker 2: Those arguments when I made them to oppose the impeachment
Speaker 2: of Trump are now jeering those same arguments and the
Speaker 2: principles haven't changed any It's just the shoes now on
Speaker 2: the other foot. As Alan Drschowitz would.
Speaker 1: Say, since we're yeah, since we're talking immigration and that's
Speaker 1: what this is all about. Where are you on that
Speaker 1: Senate bill that if it miraculously passed the Senate comes
Speaker 1: to the House. Are you a yes or a no
Speaker 1: on that?
Speaker 3: Oh? No, I'm a vigorous know on that. This is
Speaker 3: a terrible bill.
Speaker 2: And you know they're selling it as an improvement on
Speaker 2: the current situation, and that part is true, but it
Speaker 2: would tie the hands of any president who actually wanted
Speaker 2: to control the border in the future. Just just to
Speaker 2: be clear on this, what it does is it says
Speaker 2: that the administration has to allow up to four thousand illegal.
Speaker 3: Entries every day. If if it.
Speaker 2: Goes above four thousand, the administration has the discretion of
Speaker 2: closing the border if it goes up above five thousand
Speaker 2: a day for seven days or more. They're required to
Speaker 2: do that. Now, again, that's an improvement over Biden. But
Speaker 2: imagine if the next president actually wants to secure our border,
Speaker 2: and I think we're going to the next president, will
Speaker 2: he's now he's now required to accept at least four
Speaker 2: thousand illegal immigrants a day, or up to four thousand
Speaker 2: illegal immigrants a day under this bill. That's outrageous. That's
Speaker 2: one point eight million a year. And by the way,
Speaker 2: the cartels control that border. Nobody crosses it without their permission.
Speaker 2: They'll simply time they releases, so.
Speaker 3: That you have you have three thy nine and ninety
Speaker 3: nine a day.
Speaker 2: You can see the difference in enforcement between the two administrations.
Speaker 2: The day Trump left office, the border was secured. The
Speaker 2: remain in Mexico policy had slowed illegal immigration to a
Speaker 2: trickle of the border wall was nearing completion. We were
Speaker 2: actually enforcing court ordered deportations. His very first day in office,
Speaker 2: inauguration day, Joe Biden reversed those policies, and that is
Speaker 2: what has produced the largest illegal mass migration in American history,
Speaker 2: and so it ultimately is an enforcement issue. This would
Speaker 2: make enforcement very difficult for a future president who actually
Speaker 2: wanted to do what Trump did and secure the border.
Speaker 1: My only gripe with that argument, which I agree with,
Speaker 1: is that some of that authority, a significant part, was
Speaker 1: based on COVID though is there any getting that back?
Speaker 2: Well, actually, the Immigration a Nationality Act let me reach
Speaker 2: it just as portion.
Speaker 3: This is current law. Whenever the President.
Speaker 2: Finds that the entry of any aliens or any class
Speaker 2: of aliens in the United States would be detrimental to
Speaker 2: the interests of the United States, he may, by proclamation
Speaker 2: for such period as he should deem necessary, suspend the
Speaker 2: entry of all aliens and any class of aliens as
Speaker 2: immigrants or non immigrants, or impose on the entry of
Speaker 2: aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
Speaker 3: That's current law, this president.
Speaker 1: That settles it, doesn't it? Yeah right, yeah, Well, I
Speaker 1: finally understood what Alejandro Miwerk has meant when he said
Speaker 1: the border is secure. The cartel is secured it. They're
Speaker 1: in charge of how many people can come across.
Speaker 3: So we was telling you we.
Speaker 2: Were totally at the real sector when we were passed
Speaker 2: a couple of months ago. Last month of the just
Speaker 2: in that sector, they asked.
Speaker 3: Tom, the cartel is making.
Speaker 2: Thirty two million dollars a week. That's about one point
Speaker 2: six billion dollars a year just in that one sector.
Speaker 2: So the crime cartels actually are making money completely controlling
Speaker 2: their side of the border, and we're losing a ton
Speaker 2: of money with the with the border wide open on
Speaker 2: our side, so there's something wrong with that. And again
Speaker 2: it comes down to enforcement. I you know, at Huma
Speaker 2: last year, I told the Border of Patrol offs we
Speaker 2: met with, we write laws, we can't enforce them. What
Speaker 2: laws do you need us to write? And they said
Speaker 2: to him, man, we don't need new laws. We need
Speaker 2: to enforce the laws we already have on the books.
Speaker 2: Trump did, Biden didn't. And this, this Senate bill would
Speaker 2: lock in a future president and make it very difficult
Speaker 2: for him to actually control the borders, at least at
Speaker 2: least any anywhere below three nine daily illegal crossings.
Speaker 3: Wow.
Speaker 1: Tom McClintock, Congressman from the fourth district to California. Tom,
Speaker 1: you hit it out of the park. Good stuff. I'm
Speaker 1: sorry a fifth district, fifth district. Oh, they keep switching
Speaker 1: the damn districts. You're right, don't worry. People will be
Speaker 1: fired for giving me the wrong info. We don't we
Speaker 1: enforce the rules here, maybe not in the way here
Speaker 1: we do, all right, Tom, It's great to talk to you. Thanks,
Speaker 1: keep up the good work. Thanks Armstrong and Getty