Mayorkas Impeachment: Congressman Tom McClintock Talks to Armstrong & Getty

California Congressman Tom McClintock (CA's 4th district) talks to Armstrong & Getty for a discussion about the impeachment of Mayorkas and the border crisis.

Listen to the episode of the Armstrong & Getty Extra Large Podcast featuring Congressman McClintock Below...

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
These articles are the product of a.

Speaker 2 (00:02):
Deliberate, thoughtful, and fair investigation.

Speaker 1 (00:05):
There is no greater impeachable events than for an officer
of the United States a violate their oaths.

Speaker 3 (00:10):
You have a short time coming.

Speaker 2 (00:12):
You can honorably resign or we are going to.

Speaker 1 (00:16):
Impeach you, and it's happening very very soon.

Speaker 2 (00:20):
On this vote, the ya's are two fourteen and the
nay's are two sixteen.

Speaker 3 (00:25):
The resolution is not adopted.

Speaker 1 (00:27):
An attempt by the Republicans to impeach DH Secretary Mayorcis
yesterday over the border craziness failed because a handful of
Republicans voted no, among them Congressman Tom McClintock the fourth
District of California. Tom's often been described as the gold

(00:48):
standard for fiscal conservative and conservatism and Congress if that
even exists anymore, And the congressman joins us, Now, Tom,
how are you, sir?

Speaker 3 (00:56):
I'm doing fine. Thanks.

Speaker 1 (00:58):
I'd imagine you're hearing it loud from a lot of
Republican voters for your vote against the impeachment of may Orcus.
How dare you, sir? Why are you for open borders?
That's the question.

Speaker 2 (01:09):
It's actually been fairly mild. We've only had two death
threats so far, so I consider that a win.

Speaker 1 (01:14):
Good day. Yeah, So why were you no vote on
impeaching the dh DHS secretary.

Speaker 2 (01:20):
Because that's not what impeachment is for. You know, I
have nothing nice to say about Mayarcus. I think he
is guillty of maladministration on a truly cosmic scale.

Speaker 3 (01:32):
But that is not grounds for impeachment. And we know
that because maladministration was specifically.

Speaker 2 (01:41):
Considered by the Convention and rejected. Instead, they use the
term high crimes and misdemeanors, and there's a very specific
meaning to that, crimes that are related to the office.
By dumbing down the standard for impeachment, you're opening up
a Pandora's box that will be turned against conservatives on
the Supreme Court, would be turned against the future Republican

(02:03):
administration and cabinet the moment the Democrats take control, and
there'll be nobody to stop them because the Republicans will
now have signed off on this new and very different
standard for impeachment. And the fact of the matter is,
even if the Senate were to remove him, it changes
nothing because he is simply carrying out the policies of

(02:26):
this administration. You're not going to fix this by replacing
one leftist official like may Orcus with say an Occasio Cortes.
It only can be fixed by replacing the entire administration,
and that can only be done by the American people
at the ballot box.

Speaker 3 (02:44):
And I think they're coming around to that conclusion.

Speaker 1 (02:47):
I hadn't realized AOC was even on the short list
with a terrifying notion. And I actually heard Mike Gollagher
speaking on this topic and he said something very similar
about swapping out one, you know, far left puppet for
Biden for another one. What good would that do? But
I want to nail this down in case people went
over a potholer didn't quite follow it. It was the
Constitutional Convention where the concept of impeachment was being discussed

(03:12):
at length that you referred to when you said the Convention,
and they looked at well, you're just bad at your
job and you're not doing it, and they specifically rejected
that right.

Speaker 3 (03:22):
Madison objected.

Speaker 2 (03:24):
Actually, the committee on eleven, on September fourth, issues a
recommendation treason and bribery only.

Speaker 3 (03:31):
That's it. George Mason objected to that.

Speaker 2 (03:34):
On September the eighth, he says, well, there ought to
be something more than that.

Speaker 3 (03:39):
He proposed maladministration.

Speaker 2 (03:41):
That's basically doing a lousy job, and may Yorks is
certainly guilty of that. And it was Madison who stood
up and said, wait a second. You go down this path,
then you're making the president a minister of the Senate.
That destroys the entire concept of the separation of powers,

(04:01):
that's the central architecture of this constitution. And that's when
they rejected maladministration doing a bad job and substitute for
it high crimes and misdemeanors. Actually committing a crime relating
to the office. That's the high and high crimes. You know.
The example I use is Bill Clinton. He was definitely
guilty of a crime perjury, but it was not a
high crime, it was not related to his office. So

(04:22):
he was unjustly impeached by the House. He was quickly
acquitted by the Senate, and the American people made their
displeasure with this partisan, one sided impeachment very clear at
the polls. And it pains me to see the Republican
Party making the same mistake again.

Speaker 1 (04:40):
Well, and you already mentioned this, but the concern would
be that would be constantly impeaching these people. You would
have impeached the whoever was Secretary of Health and Human
Services when the Republicans had the House because you didn't
like the way the Obama Care rollout went. You to
impeach the Secretary of the Treasury because we're printing so
much money. I mean, there'd be so many things all
the time.

Speaker 2 (05:00):
That was Madison's point at the convention. At the moment,
you have a president of one party and a Congress
of the other.

Speaker 3 (05:08):
If you're going to have.

Speaker 2 (05:09):
A low standard like that, that's going to be a
constant fixture now in our political life, and that's not
going to go well for the country.

Speaker 3 (05:18):
It's not altogether complicated.

Speaker 1 (05:22):
And what an interesting way to illustrate it that the
president would become a minister hired and fired by the Senate. Yeah,
that's that's a good illustration, just as.

Speaker 3 (05:32):
I was doing.

Speaker 2 (05:32):
And by the way, these are the same arguments that
I made against the sham impeachments of Donald Trump twice
in the House Judiciary Committee.

Speaker 3 (05:41):
And the same people who cheered.

Speaker 2 (05:42):
Those arguments when I made them to oppose the impeachment
of Trump are now jeering those same arguments and the
principles haven't changed any It's just the shoes now on
the other foot. As Alan Drschowitz would.

Speaker 1 (05:55):
Say, since we're yeah, since we're talking immigration and that's
what this is all about. Where are you on that
Senate bill that if it miraculously passed the Senate comes
to the House. Are you a yes or a no
on that?

Speaker 3 (06:06):
Oh? No, I'm a vigorous know on that. This is
a terrible bill.

Speaker 2 (06:11):
And you know they're selling it as an improvement on
the current situation, and that part is true, but it
would tie the hands of any president who actually wanted
to control the border in the future. Just just to
be clear on this, what it does is it says
that the administration has to allow up to four thousand illegal.

Speaker 3 (06:36):
Entries every day. If if it.

Speaker 2 (06:40):
Goes above four thousand, the administration has the discretion of
closing the border if it goes up above five thousand
a day for seven days or more. They're required to
do that. Now, again, that's an improvement over Biden. But
imagine if the next president actually wants to secure our border,
and I think we're going to the next president, will

(07:00):
he's now he's now required to accept at least four
thousand illegal immigrants a day, or up to four thousand
illegal immigrants a day under this bill. That's outrageous. That's
one point eight million a year. And by the way,
the cartels control that border. Nobody crosses it without their permission.
They'll simply time they releases, so.

Speaker 3 (07:21):
That you have you have three thy nine and ninety
nine a day.

Speaker 2 (07:24):
You can see the difference in enforcement between the two administrations.
The day Trump left office, the border was secured. The
remain in Mexico policy had slowed illegal immigration to a
trickle of the border wall was nearing completion. We were
actually enforcing court ordered deportations. His very first day in office,
inauguration day, Joe Biden reversed those policies, and that is

(07:48):
what has produced the largest illegal mass migration in American history,
and so it ultimately is an enforcement issue. This would
make enforcement very difficult for a future president who actually
wanted to do what Trump did and secure the border.

Speaker 1 (08:05):
My only gripe with that argument, which I agree with,
is that some of that authority, a significant part, was
based on COVID though is there any getting that back?

Speaker 2 (08:14):
Well, actually, the Immigration a Nationality Act let me reach
it just as portion.

Speaker 3 (08:20):
This is current law. Whenever the President.

Speaker 2 (08:22):
Finds that the entry of any aliens or any class
of aliens in the United States would be detrimental to
the interests of the United States, he may, by proclamation
for such period as he should deem necessary, suspend the
entry of all aliens and any class of aliens as
immigrants or non immigrants, or impose on the entry of

(08:43):
aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

Speaker 3 (08:47):
That's current law, this president.

Speaker 1 (08:50):
That settles it, doesn't it? Yeah right, yeah, Well, I
finally understood what Alejandro Miwerk has meant when he said
the border is secure. The cartel is secured it. They're
in charge of how many people can come across.

Speaker 3 (09:04):
So we was telling you we.

Speaker 2 (09:05):
Were totally at the real sector when we were passed
a couple of months ago. Last month of the just
in that sector, they asked.

Speaker 3 (09:13):
Tom, the cartel is making.

Speaker 2 (09:16):
Thirty two million dollars a week. That's about one point
six billion dollars a year just in that one sector.
So the crime cartels actually are making money completely controlling
their side of the border, and we're losing a ton
of money with the with the border wide open on

(09:37):
our side, so there's something wrong with that. And again
it comes down to enforcement. I you know, at Huma
last year, I told the Border of Patrol offs we
met with, we write laws, we can't enforce them. What
laws do you need us to write? And they said
to him, man, we don't need new laws. We need
to enforce the laws we already have on the books.
Trump did, Biden didn't. And this, this Senate bill would

(09:58):
lock in a future president and make it very difficult
for him to actually control the borders, at least at
least any anywhere below three nine daily illegal crossings.

Speaker 3 (10:09):
Wow.

Speaker 1 (10:10):
Tom McClintock, Congressman from the fourth district to California. Tom,
you hit it out of the park. Good stuff. I'm
sorry a fifth district, fifth district. Oh, they keep switching
the damn districts. You're right, don't worry. People will be
fired for giving me the wrong info. We don't we
enforce the rules here, maybe not in the way here
we do, all right, Tom, It's great to talk to you. Thanks,

(10:31):
keep up the good work. Thanks Armstrong and Getty