Senate Republicans Host Press Conference on Homeland Secretary Mayorkas Impeachment Trial

People, this ranks right up there with getting rid of the filibuster. We're either going to have a United States Senate as set up by founders or we're not. And that's what's going on here. We all know that Chuck Schumer is playing politics with this. He has members that are very likely going to lose their seats and he does not want them to have to take a vote on this. He also knows that the border and the lack of border security is the number one issue with the American people. I hear it in Tennessee every day. So Chuck Schumer is trying to be too cute by half and devise a way to not have a trial. Now here's what he had to say in 2019 prior to the impeachment of President Trump. He said, and I'm going to quote him, we would do well to remember our constitutional duty to act as judges and jurors in a potential trial, end quote. So he fully realizes that this is our constitutional duty. It is ascribed to us to take up these articles, to hold a trial, but he is so power hungry, the only thing he can focus on is the November elections. And what he is willing to do is toss the constitution aside so that he can protect some of his members. It is imperative that we take the information from the house. It is imperative that we hold a trial of Secretary Mayorkas who has neglected his duty. Think about it. Think about a Homeland Security Secretary that does not believe in securing the homeland. A moment ago, Senator Kennedy referred to this as akin to the nuclear option. This is certainly the most violent act undertaken at the United States Senate, violent against the institution of the Senate and its time honored traditions. Since November of 2013, when Harry Reid nuked, deployed the nuclear option on the executive calendar filibuster, in a sense, this is even more serious. On the one hand, we deal more frequently on a day-to-day basis with the filibuster. But on the other hand, in this respect, this effort to nuke our traditions is even more serious here, because unlike the filibuster, which is rooted in tradition, in our rules, this one is rooted in the constitution. Article 1 gives the house the sole power to impeach and gives the Senate the power and the duty to conduct trials of impeached officials. There have been 21 sets of articles of impeachment passed by the House of Representatives in the history of our republic, and I believe it's 17 out of those 21 cases where the Senate conducted a trial and those proceedings culminated in a verdict of guilty or not guilty. In the remaining four cases, the Senate didn't conduct a trial and didn't reach a verdict of guilty or not guilty, but only because between the time when the House adopted the articles and it reached or not reached the Senate, the person holding the office had either died or left office, thus mooting the case and obviating the need for a trial. There's no plausible justification for invoking any of those historical antecedents here, as Secretary Mayorkas is very much alive and very much still the Secretary of Homeland Security. So in that material respect, what they're nuking here is not just a Senate precedent or a Senate rule, but a provision of the constitution and a time-honored duty in the United States Senate to do this. They're nuking a provision of the constitution. So separate and apart from how you feel about Secretary Mayorkas and his performance of his duties, anyone who fancies him or herself an institutionalist, someone concerned about the Senate as an institution, should for that reason alone be willing to stand up to this form of legislative tyranny and say that we've got an obligation to do this. Now on the merits of the thing, I would ask a series of questions, questions that one way or another, regardless of where you stand on Secretary Mayorkas, need to be answered. So for example, if you think that Secretary Mayorkas has not willfully, defiantly refused to enforce our laws, then let's hold a trial. If you disagree that he's allowed over 430,000 unaccompanied minor children in recent months into the United States, then let's hold a trial. If you think that he hasn't dangerously loosened the restrictions and efforts to vet people entering our country from China, including a whole lot of military-aged men crossing our border, then let's hold a trial. If you believe that we haven't seen a dramatic increase in known terror suspects entering our southern border unlawfully, then let's hold a trial. Because a trial, after all, can either acquit or it can convict, which begs the question, why don't they want to hold a trial, given that we have a sworn duty consistent with our oath to uphold the Constitution, as we're all required to take under the Constitution, to conduct this trial? We've got nearly two and a half centuries of precedent backing up that constitutional duty. Why depart from this now? Why depart from this now, even if, especially if, you think he's innocent of the impeachable offenses of which he's been accused? What does an innocent administration that has nothing to hide do? It's not this. I'm very grateful to Speaker Johnson for his bold willingness to delay this. We don't want this to come over on the eve of the moment when members might be operating under the influence of jet-fume intoxication. That was precisely the plan, and it's much better for us to do this at the beginning of a legislative week rather than toward the end of one, and I thank him for doing that. Senator Cruz? We are witnessing a profound threat to our nation at the southern border. Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and this entire administration has deliberately and willfully facilitated the criminal invasion of this country. It is a humanitarian crisis, it is a public safety crisis, it is a national security crisis. When Alejandro Mayorkas last testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, I asked him how many migrants died last year crossing into this country. He said, I don't know. Of course he didn't. The number is 853, but this administration doesn't care about the body bags that their open borders are producing. When Joe Biden stood before Congress and gave the State of the Union address, he had planned in his remarks not to say a word about Lakin Riley, the beautiful 22-year-old woman, the nursing student in Georgia, murdered by an illegal alien Joe Biden and Alejandro Mayorkas released into this country. When Biden gave his State of the Union address, he didn't mention the name Jeremy Caceres, the two-year-old little boy murdered just miles away from here in Prince George's County again by an illegal alien that Joe Biden and Alejandro Mayorkas released into this country. He also didn't mention the Haitian illegal immigrant that Joe Biden and Alejandro Mayorkas flew from Haiti to America, released, who then violently raped a 15-year-old girl in Boston, Massachusetts, who was severely disabled. What we are witnessing is evil. It is wrong. That is why the House of Representatives impeached Alejandro Mayorkas, because he has aided and abetted the criminal invasion of this United States. And yet, Chuck Schumer and the Democrats don't want to talk about it. Even worse, Chuck Schumer and the Democrats want to defy their constitutional responsibility. 21 times in our nation's history, the House of Representatives has sent articles of impeachment over to the Senate, 21 times. Alejandro Mayorkas is only the second cabinet member ever to be impeached. The last time a cabinet member was impeached was 1876, 148 years ago. What Mayorkas has done is extraordinary, and its consequences are profound. Under the Constitution, the responsibilities of the Senate are simple and straightforward. They are to try this impeachment. Chuck Schumer doesn't want to do that. Instead, he wants to move to table the entire thing, and there are three reasons Chuck Schumer wants to move to table the articles of impeachment. Reason number one, he does not want to allow the House managers to present the evidence of Alejandro Mayorkas and this administration's willful decision to aid and abet this criminal invasion of this country. The second reason Schumer wants to table the articles of impeachment is he does not want a trial. He does not want the American people to see the facts when each of us lay out the facts of what's going on. No Democrat argues there's not another side. They don't defend it and say, no, no, no, it's great. Don't worry about the people who are dying. Don't worry about the children being raped. Don't worry about the Mexican drug cartels making billions of dollars. The Democrats have no response. Their response is they count on the media not to report it. That's their entire strategy. And the third reason Schumer wants to table these articles of impeachment is he does not want Senate Democrats, particularly those on the ballot in November, to vote guilty or not guilty because it is indisputable Alejandro Mayorkas is guilty and he's not just guilty of aiding and abetting the invasion that has happened for the last three and a half years and every dead body that has resulted, but he's guilty tomorrow and the next day and the next day he intends to continue facilitating and accelerating this criminal invasion. Of the 21 times the House has voted out articles of impeachment and sent them to the Senate, in four of them the Senate either lacked jurisdiction because the individual was a senator and not an executive branch officer or judicial officer or the person impeached was out of office and the case was mooted. In every single case where the individual impeached was still in office, in all 17, the Senate conducted a trial and adjudicated and came to a decision guilty or not guilty. In 2013, Harry Reid nuked the filibuster. That did enormous damage to the institution of the United States Senate. In 2024, Chuck Schumer intends to nuke the impeachment clause of the United States Constitution and make no mistake, if this precedent is set, it will not be the last time it is used. If and when Donald Trump wins in November, if God forbid Democrats have the House, they'll impeach him again and probably again and again and again. And what Chuck Schumer is deciding is the Senate no longer has to try impeachments but instead can hide behind procedural games. Anyone who cares about the security of this country should oppose what Schumer is doing and vote to convict Alejandro Mayorkas and anyone that cares about the United States Senate and about the United States Constitution should demand that a trial be conducted. The American people deserve a trial and I would encourage everyone in the media, ask yourself why is Chuck Schumer so terrified to have a trial on what's happening on our southern border? And the answer is he cannot defend it and he desperately wants to keep it hidden and secret from the American people. First of all, thank you, Senator Marshall, for sponsoring this press conference. Thanks to all of you for coming here and I want to thank the legal minds of our conference for kind of laying out the case of why we must hold a trial. I'm going to make the practical case. The reason Chuck Schumer wants to table it is this chart. I was with President Trump last week traveling with him, of course we talked about the border and I showed him this chart that I've been developing since I was chairman of Homeland Security probably in 2014 and beyond, just updating it monthly. The disaster that was Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals which sparked this massive under Biden invasion of our country. President Trump liked the chart and he adapted it, he modified it for his own use. It's gotten more publicity as a result. I'm shocked. But one of the commentators, one of the political commentators, retweeted that chart and said this will itself decide the election. That's why Senator Schumer does not want to hold this trial. I've made one additional modification, by the way, what I like about this chart and what I've tried to describe here is the cause and effect. Starting with DACA, the reinterpretation of the Flores decision, the fact that President Trump was faced with his own border crisis but he fixed it. You'll notice his peak, a little under 5,000 people a day on average being encountered at the southern border and within 12 months he had reduced that down to about 500 a day. Now that was before Title 42, what I've added to the chart now is expulsions under Title 42. So even though single adults started increasing in about May of 2020 during the election year because Democrat presidential candidates were vowing they would end deportation, they'd provide free health care. That was an incentive. That's the problem. The Biden administration, Democrats, they're incentivizing the invasion of this country. So more people started coming, but because of COVID, President Trump invoked Title 42 and he started expelling people. So you can see the incredibly small numbers of people under the Trump administration that President Trump allowed in this country. We had pretty well secured our border, setting up the next step of passing a functioning legal immigration system. I was working with Senator Lee and the Trump administration on it. We would have fixed these problems, but unfortunately America made the wrong choice. The elected President Biden and Democrats control the houses of Congress and this is an important point to understand. Democrats, President Biden, want an open border. They caused this problem. We didn't need a law passed to have President Biden have the authority to close the border. President Trump, using existing law, closed the border. President Biden, using that exact same authority, opened it up. So you can see the explosion from the end of the Trump administration where virtually we had the border closed and then the explosion and the widening gap as President Biden allowed Title 42 to expire. But even without that, even using Title 42, they welcomed, they incentivized families, unaccompanied children, and subjected them to the depredations. Their open border policy facilitates the multi-billion dollar business model of some of the most evil people on the planet. The human traffickers, the sex traffickers, the drug traffickers poisoning our cities. That's what Biden and the Democrats, and this is important to note too, it's not just President Biden. This is Democrat policies. That's what must be defeated. But Senator Schumer wants to nip this impeachment trial in the bud because he doesn't want the House managers to make the case, to explore exactly what happened, how their actions, how their policies are causing this invasion. They don't want to be held accountable. That's why a trial is imperative in the United States Senate and why I so appreciate what Speaker Johnson apparently just announced that he's going to delay delivery of these things so that Senator Schumer doesn't have Thursday at one o'clock to just snuff this thing out. So again, thank you, Senator Marshall. Thank you all. And Senator Schmidt. Politically speaking, if there were a Mount Rushmore of worst cabinet members in the history of our country, Secretary Mnuchin would be on that Mount Rushmore. He'd be one of the faces. Legally speaking, he subverted the laws of the United States and that's what this is all about. But before we get to that, we have to have a trial. The Constitution calls for it. In the history of this country, as you've heard here today, this, what Chuck Schumer's about to do has never happened. In a town that says things are unprecedented all the time, this actually is unprecedented. The idea that you would dismiss or table something that is part of our duties, part of the, when we raise our right hand, when we take this office, something that we're supposed to do. Chuck Schumer is willing to throw all of that away because he's afraid of a couple of news cycles. And we hear a lot about threats to democracy. There is only, ladies and gentlemen, there is only one party in this country trying to throw a political rival off the ballot, throw him in jail for the rest of his life, end the filibuster, destroy the Senate and end impeachment forever. That is what their game plan is. And so I would just simply ask, even my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, this is our job. This is our job, regardless of how you're going to vote. Because 200 years from now, people will look back, senators who we don't know their names and sitting in seats in that chamber, will look back to what happened in the next seven days. And it will set a course for the rest of American history, because there's no going back. Once you break the seal here, there will be no impeachment trials ever again. And Chuck Schumer likes to say, history is watching. And I would remind him, history is indeed watching Chuck Schumer. Do the right thing. Hold the trial. Let the chips fall where they may. I want to make one point, and we'll open it up for questions. Several have pointed out that Senator Schumer is unleashing another nuclear weapon here. But can you imagine what the retaliation might be? Could you imagine a day in time where we have a Republican president, a Democrat-controlled House, they impeach the Republican president, they send it to a Republican-controlled Senate, and that Senate said, we're going to table it. I just think that Americans and the national media would lose their minds over it. But we're letting Chuck Schumer get by with it for whatever reason now. So let's do questions. I should go ahead. Yes, ma'am. Are you delaying this? You weren't directly from the Speaker? Because you should have made a few hours ago that they were sending them the articles. Yeah. Okay, so he's delayed this. If this is delayed to Monday, what then? How do you get a trial? How do you try to obstruct Schumer from dismissing this? Well, remember- Come up to the microphone, Mike, so they can record it better. Remember, once they deliver articles of impeachment, it triggers a whole different set of rules. The Senate has exactly three states of being, legislative calendar, executive calendar, and impeachment court calendar. The minute we receive the articles, we are convened, they read the articles, we get sworn in, and then we go about a process to negotiate the precise procedural meets and bounds of this particular impeachment proceeding. And in those, we make arguments. We're allowed to make, in theory, unlimited motions, subject to being ruled dilatory by the presiding officer, Patty Murray, in this instance, because the president's not on trial. And so we'll be making arguments and points of order in the unfortunate event that they decide to proceed with this disastrous approach to nuke impeachment, at least nuke impeachment in all cases where the party in control of the majority of the Senate finds itself in opposition to the impeachment. Remember, it has not been very long since we've conducted- well, we conducted two impeachment trials involving the 45th president of the United States, the first of which came over to us at a time when we Republicans were in control of the United States Senate. Think about it this way. Over time, you've seen the Senate gradually whittling away its own authority and with it its own obligations. On the legislative calendar, we've seen the Senate and the House, sadly, transferring a disproportionate share of our lawmaking power over to unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats in the executive branch of government. On the executive calendar side, we've seen ourselves whittle down the number and the percentage, the portion of federal appointees, presidential appointees subject to Senate confirmation. We'll now have a trifecta, a trifecta if we undertake this task, where we will have yet again narrowed down our constitutional duties and that's shameful. But getting back to your question, this will be all about making those arguments and we'll have more time to do them. Senators will be less inclined to operate under jet fume intoxication on a Monday than they would on a Thursday. Go ahead. Yeah. Short answer is we're going to file points of order, but, but Senator Schumer can, can block those. We'll have, we'll have a lot of points of order because this is, this is blatantly unconstitutional, but Senator Murray, the pro tem will be in the chair and she doesn't have to recognize us. That's entirely possible that Senator Schumer would tell her only to recognize him. And we wouldn't even have a chance to make a pull on the board. So much democracy. I mean, the Senate runs on unanimous consent and moving forward, we may not be providing that consent. Well, and, and let me say also, y'all can influence this. Why is Chuck Schumer trying desperately to defy the constitution and not have a trial? Because he doesn't want the American people to hear the facts about what this administration has done and how many Americans have died as a result. And he believes with the motion to table, he believes the press will be compliant. How many of you are going to write a story tomorrow that says Chuck Schumer and the Democrats defy 200 years of history and for the first time refused to hold a trial on impeachment? I suspect they're not going to be many stories. Why is Schumer wanting to do this? Because the press he believes will let him get away with it and every Democrat. How many of you have asked John Tester in Montana? Why are you refusing to comply with your constitutional duty? How many of you have asked Sherrod Brown or Jackie Rosen or Tammy Baldwin? They're all on the ballot. That's who Chuck Schumer is trying to protect from having to hear the evidence and fulfill a constitutional responsibility. He believes the press won't report on what he's doing. When you mentioned the vulnerable Democrats who are up for re-election and that they've kind of gone back and forth, but there's even some Republicans that are a question on what they'd vote in a motion to table. Talking to reporters today, Senator Romney said that he wasn't sure what he would do. I mean, what's the reaction to that? How do you project a unified GOP conference when you have someone on that side saying they don't know what they'll do? Look, I think that every senator is going to vote their conscience. Obviously, Senator Romney's not up for re-election. Maybe there's a reason he's not going up for re-election. I would just tell you that the super majority of Republicans that I know back home are demanding some sort of accountability. I'm not sure what town halls he's going to and listening to, but it's not the same town halls I'm listening to. Mark? Mark Papscott. I have two questions. I want to follow up, Senator Lee, on what you were just saying about the demolition of the congressional board. The founders purposely made Congress, the creation of Congress, Article I. Are you suggesting that effectively Congress is no longer the first branch? Yes. And look, it was surprising to no one, it was secret to no one at the time, that the most dangerous branch of the federal government was then, is now, has always been, was always intended to be, the Article I branch, the legislative branch, Congress, where we work. Always. Why? Well, because we have one branch that makes the law. We have one branch that enforces the law, or is supposed to. The same law is passed by the legislative branch. A third branch that interprets the law. Those are subservient to the dominant role of making the law. We set the policy. We decide what should be. The executive branch enforces that. And then, in the rear view mirror, the courts look at things and say, this is what it means. This is what it, this is what was enacted. This is what the law actually says. So we are by far the most dangerous branch, and that's why the founding fathers entrusted it only to the branch of government most accountable to the people at the most regular intervals. Voters have the chance to fire every representative in the House, all 435, every two years. Voters have the chance to fire a third of us every two years. There is a reason for this, and that makes it that much more dangerous. When we impart, we relinquish, we shun, we run from our own obligations just for the sake of ease, for the sake of avoidance of criticism. That's the road to tyranny, folks. Whether you're a Democrat, a Republican, a liberal, a conservative, that ought to scare you to death. Well, look, I don't know that it's going to take an entire week to go through the initial round of arguing. I mean, I would love to make it not easy for them to do it. I don't know that it will stretch it into an entire week. What I'm saying is if we don't start it until the end of the week, that leaves us no adequate opportunity to debate it. And you don't want members trying to get out of town so quickly that they're influenced by the jet fumes. And let me jump in on this, because there are two ways this can and should proceed constitutionally and consistent with precedent. One is, next week, we receive the articles of impeachment on Monday night, the Senate, under the rules, immediately moves into a court of impeachment. And typically, the beginning of that is negotiating the resolution that lays out how the impeachment will proceed. There are two ways to do it. One, the trial can be on the floor of the Senate. That's what happened with both of the impeachments of Donald Trump, is the impeachment was on the floor of the Senate. The other way they can do it is the Senate can appoint a committee to try the impeachment. So not the entire Senate, not on the Senate floor. That is the way it has typically been done for impeachments below the level of president. So Senator Lee filed an organizing resolution for the full Senate to convene and conduct a trial the way we did twice for President Trump. He and I both believe that would be the best way to do it. But it's not the only way to do it. The other way to do it would be next week when the articles of impeachment are received to appoint an impeachment committee that would then conduct the trial in the committee. And that would enable if there are other legislative matters that need to proceed, they could proceed. They would proceed on parallel tracks. So any Democrat who tells you, no, no, no, we've got other things to turn to. We've got FISA. We've got this. We've got that. Every one of those arguments is baloney because under the existing rules, the Senate could appoint an impeachment committee to conduct a trial that would be public and in front of the American people. And the Senate could simultaneously proceed and consider legislation while that trial was ongoing. You said this place functions by unanimous consent. Is it, I just want to make sure I understand, is it that if you don't get a trial, that's the promise? You'll thumb this up then going forward? Well, of course, we would need the majority of the Republican conference to basically agree with that strategy. But we believe this is important enough that that ought to be on the table. If Senator Schumer so disrespects the traditions and precedents of the Senate, he's willing to do this nuclear option on the impeachment power. Um, I think we should certainly challenge him and let him realize that it may not be real easy going from here on in. Let me just add, I will also say, this is not like some amendment on an approach bill, right? This is the United States constitution in 240 plus years of precedent. And so my, my personal view is the consequences ought to be commiserate with the action. And this is again, short of ending the filibuster. There's, there's nothing more you could do in the United States Senate to diminish this institution from its constitutional responsibilities. This is it. Impeachment is actually something we're supposed to do that trial. So my personal view is that there ought to be a real cost for Chuck Schumer. So we'll see. What kind of question is that? How do you know when we don't have the votes? The benefit of the delay is that we have a chance to talk about the issue. I mean, if you guys want to go back and write an article about whether your LinkedIn page is holding you back, you can do that or you can write about this issue. And short of getting rid of the filibuster, this goes to the heart of the United States Senate. I happen to think, and I think my colleagues agree with me, that maybe talking about it for a few days might, before we take the constitution and turn it upside down, just might be a wise thing to do. Well, and I can't tell you that we, that every Republican is going to vote for this. I can't tell you that. Nor do you. You know, as well as I do, that we have some, some free range chickens and they wander off and sometimes we can't catch them. They're healthy though. And they, and they had the right to be free range chickens. I'm just telling you all these questions that are being asked, you're, you're falling into Senator Schumer's trap because he's going to try to muddy up this water to make it look deep. There's nothing complicated about this. You either believe in the constitution or you don't. I will say there was strong consensus in the Senate lunch today to delay this delivery of impeachment so we can have this discussion because we feel this is an important discussion to have. So again, that was almost unanimous consensus. Nobody, people ask, anybody dissent? Nobody did. Yeah. And by the way, Joe Manchin and Kirsten Sinema bucked Chuck Schumer on the filibuster just a couple of years ago. So I don't know. There might be Democrats who actually care about the constitution too. Nah. But if they're allowed to get away with this tabling or dismissal, uh, that would be. Let's be clear. The question, what difference does it make doing it on a Thursday afternoon? Every one of you covers Capitol Hill. You're aware on Thursday afternoon, senators rush to the airport and fly to get out of here. Schumer wants it on a Thursday afternoon because he wants no coverage. He wants it to go away quickly. The advantage of starting the week with it is it enables the Senate to focus on it. We ought to do our job. And I will say the question a minute ago that was asked, well, you don't have the votes. Understand what you say when you say that we don't have the votes. You're saying that you know that every single Democrat senator does not give a damn about what evidence might be presented. Wouldn't listen to the evidence. Wouldn't be open to any evidence. Doesn't care about the people being killed. Doesn't care about the hundred thousand Americans who died of drug overdoses last year. Doesn't care about the little boys and girls being violently sexually assaulted. They don't come to the border. They don't look them in the eyes. I do. Every one of us here has been to the border. We've seen children. We've seen women who have been brutalized by the cartels. And your question assumes no Democrat cares. They're all okay with the open border. By the way, remember that when you write the stories about each of the Democrats saying I'm very concerned about border security. Because they're going to say that in their election ads. They're going to claim they're very concerned about it. Well, if they are, we ought to have a trial. And the reason Schumer doesn't want a trial, he doesn't want the evidence in front of him. And you know the Democrat senators don't care about the people that are getting hurt by these open borders. Because their only priority is political power. I'm going to make one point, too. Is that public sentiment, public opinion does drive an impeachment trial. 1974, I'm a young boy watching Watergate hearings. And those hearings, with all the American eyes on those, as boring as those hearings were, they drove an impeachment trial to the point that caused Richard Nixon to resign. And just like the press then had a responsibility, the press has a responsibility now, I hope, to talk about the significance of this nuclear option. Yeah, go ahead. Would you consider it a success if you were able to usher in that pressure to make Americans resign, even if you don't necessarily vote to convict or remove? America isn't going to resign. You know that, and I know that. You mentioned points of order. Sir, could you detail the kinds of points of order you're thinking of offering? I know you said it's up to them in terms of whether they recognize you, but what are your ideas in terms of... Well, I'm not going to tell you. Stay tuned. You should actually watch the proceedings. But I will tell you this. You'll be impressed. But we will have lots of points of order, and we will have lots of motions. Let me say it again. And maybe some free-range chickens. And maybe some free-range chickens, but I don't know if we'll even get to make them. Because if Senator Schumer walks in there and gives a high sign to the Speaker pro tem, and she won't recognize anybody but Senator Schumer, they can even get rid of our responsibility to raise points of order because this thing is unconstitutional. I mean, you know it's clearly unconstitutional. Go ahead. What's the fair minimum you need to see from the trial to say that you're satisfied with how the process went before the decision? I want a trial. A trial. Conduct a trial. Allow the House managers to present their evidence. That's how a trial occurs. So the House drives it. It's not the Senate that says, we know what evidence we want to hear. The Senate sits and receives the evidence, considers the evidence, and makes a determination. Have a real trial. The House will have that responsibility. And by the way, we've all seen that happen. That happened twice in recent years when the Democrats impeached Donald Trump. And to stick with John Kennedy's poultry analogies, remember what's good for the goose is good for the gander. When House Democrats impeached Donald Trump the first time, Republicans had a majority. We could have done this. We didn't. Because we actually took our constitutional responsibility seriously, and the Senate conducted the trial. The question is, is there even one Senate Democrat, one, who takes the Senate's constitutional responsibility seriously now And if the answer is no, I can promise you, the next time we see an impeachment, if the Senate is in the same party as the President, you're not going to see a trial. You're seeing the Democrats erase the impeachment clause from the Constitution. And that is a serious, serious threat to the rule of law. Let's go clear to the back. So, Alex Rodman from Newspeak. So is the ask to go straight into a trial or to have a committee assess the evidence? I'm proposing that we go straight into a trial with my organizing resolution. Senator Cruz has a different one that would propose that we have it handled by a select committee. I think most of us, maybe all of us, would probably prefer the former, but we'll take either one, as either one would satisfy our constitutional duty. Okay, last question. Mark. Yeah, when a federal official takes the office, one of the counts coming over from the House cites several specific instances where Secretary Mayorkas instructed DHS employees not to divorce the law. Is that a policy disagreement? Let's call it a violation of the law. Look, look, and understand. That's why he's not going to resign. Mayorkas is not impeached for being incompetent. He's not impeached for being negligent. This invasion is not an accident. It's not that they're bad at the job. Sadly, it's that Alejandro Mayorkas is very good at the job he's trying to do. And the job he is trying to do is maximize the number of illegal immigrants in America. This is absolutely deliberate, and this is flouting the law. Look, I've said several times, Joe Biden has done something I thought was impossible. He made me miss Barack Obama. Listen, Barack Obama, there are lots of things I disagreed with. There are lots of things I disagreed with about Barack Obama. But when it came to immigration, Obama, by and large, followed the law. And in particular, Obama deported millions of people. Remember, the left got mad at Obama. They called him the deporter-in-chief. We have never seen a president of the United States do what Joe Biden is doing, which is utterly flouting the law. Not only is Mayorkas not trying to secure the border, he's trying to accelerate illegal immigration. He wants the 10.4 million illegal immigrants to become 20 million, 30 million, 40 million, because he views them all as future Democrat votes. And so this is different from saying he's not very good at his job. This is openly defying the law, and this is aiding and abetting Mexican criminal cartels, human and drug traffickers that have become deca-billionaires because of these open border policies. One final comment, because I want to disagree with Senator Cruz. It was President Obama that sparked this invasion with the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals memorandum. That was a lawless act that caused all of this. And by the way, I do have that new chart for all of you if you want it. We've probably got a couple dozen copies. Thank you, everybody. And by the way, Ron's got a tattoo of the chart, too. It's really impressive. Stop. Thanks, everybody. It's right there if you want it. You can copy it right here. Different color codes to match your outfit? I can take art. Yeah. Thank you.