Category Archives: Republican

Its the final Fourth of July before the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary still more than six months away, yes. But all the same, the Republicans vying for their partys presidential nomination were on the trail, waving to supporters from parades, shaking hands with voters and taking selfies.

But not the front-runner: Donald J. Trump was conspicuously absent on the 247th anniversary of the nations independence.

The former president has upended the traditional expectations of Iowa and New Hampshire voters. For decades they have prided themselves on their discernment of presidential candidates and have demanded to get to know them personally before casting the first ballots in the nation.

Steven Cheung, a spokesman for Mr. Trumps 2024 campaign, objected to the notion that the former president is avoiding retail politics over the Fourth of July holiday, pointing to Mr. Trumps rally in South Carolina on Saturday, which, he said, counted as Independence Day weekend. Mr. Trump also appeared at the Moms for Liberty conference in Philadelphia on Friday, and he even dropped by Pats King of Steaks, a cheese steak palace that has been a mainstay for politicians in Philly for decades.

And this Friday the former president will be in Council Bluffs, Iowa.

But on the actual anniversary of the nations birth?

His campaign will have an overwhelming presence in various parades and patriotic events in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, Mr. Cheung said.

Mr. Trump himself, though, planned to spend the day with his family, Mr. Cheung said.

Im sure people are thankful hes not out, former Representative Will Hurd of Texas, a recent entrant in the Republican primary race, quipped outside a pancake breakfast in Merrimack, N.H. He comes with a lot of baggage.

For early-state Republican voters who hoped for more personal attention on the Fourth, the pickings were plentiful with the exception of Mr. Trump. Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida and several other Republican presidential hopefuls spent Tuesday in New Hampshire, while Mike Pence, the former vice president, was in Iowa.

Mr. Trumps campaign evinces no concern that his absence from the stage will give his rivals any room to make up ground in the Republican primaries. After queries about his July 4 plans, his team released a memo Monday afternoon highlighting his campaigns plans to celebrate the holiday in Iowa and New Hampshire and calling out his dominant position in Republican primary polling.

Republican veterans dont see much of an opening for Mr. Trumps rivals either.

He definitely plays by a different set of rules, said David Kochel, a longtime Republican adviser and strategist in Iowa. Mr. Trump has made some recent adjustments with unscheduled stops at restaurants like Pats and, after his arraignment on the first federal felony charges ever levied on a former president, at Versailles, Miamis beloved Cuban restaurant. He will be appearing with virtually the entire G.O.P. field at the Republican Party of Iowas biggest fund-raiser, the Lincoln Dinner, on July 28.

But, Mr. Kochel said, his celebrity and the fact that he was president gives him more flexibility.

The retail politics tradition in Iowa and New Hampshire may well be overrated, an artifact of a time before super PACs saturated airwaves, social media reached voters phones and celebrity pervaded the zeitgeist, regardless of who was in the diners and pizza joints.

Retail has always been mostly theater, but now its all a performance for the cameras, not about meeting regular people and listening to their concerns, said Fergus Cullen, a former chairman of the New Hampshire Republican State Committee.

For someone like Mr. DeSantis, who joined the primary campaign relatively late, appearances like his two July 4 parades do demonstrate that he is putting in the effort and taking New Hampshire seriously, said Mr. Cullen, who is now a Republican consultant in the state.

As for the former president, Can you imagine Trump walking in the Wolfeboro Fourth of July parade? he asked. I dont think so.

Limiting Mr. Trumps public appearances and emphasizing large rallies over glad-handing with a few dozen supporters may help to preserve the former presidents celebrity and mystique among his faithful while projecting confidence. And Republican primary voters already know how they feel about the former president. His fate in the primary contest may depend more on external factors like his indictments in two cases and the trials that may ensue, as well as other inquiries he is facing than on his power of persuasion at an Iowa Pizza Ranch.

Mr. Cheung insisted, even as he outlined a relatively sparse schedule for Mr. Trump,It would be incorrect to write that he will be sparing retail politics.

But the rest of the Republican field, with weaker field operations and later starts, do not have that luxury, said Dave Carney, another New Hampshire Republican consultant and veteran organizer.

For those laboring to break out of the pack, Mr. Trumps absence on July 4 presented a moment to introduce themselves to at least a few voters in person.

Today is about meeting people, right? Mr. Hurd said. Not everybody is doom scrolling on social media or consuming cable news.

Read more:

Trump Wont Campaign at a July 4 Parade, but Other Republican ... - The New York Times

More than 20 percent of Republicans surveyed said certain criminal charges against former President Trump have made them more likely to support him in the 2024 election, according to a new Ipsos poll released Thursday.

About 24 percent of polled Republicans say the charges in the classified documents investigation make them more likely to support Trump, while 21 percent said the same with regard to the 34-count indictment related to falsified business records in a Manhattan court case.

Trump was charged with 37 felonies related to alleged mishandling of classified documents at his Florida home. He also faces 34 criminal counts related to falsifying business records in a case in which he allegedly made hush money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels.

The largest proportion of Americans identifying with any party said the cases hurt their opinion of Trump or don’t change their likelihood of supporting him, 41 and 37 percent respectively.

If Trump is found guilty on the charges, about 10 percent of Republicans said they would be more likely to support him.

The findings support polling from last month that found that a majority of Americans, and approximately 80 percent of Republicans, believe that the criminal charges are politically motivated.

The survey also found that most Democrats believe Trump is guilty, while Republicans are split. Most Americans also want Trump’s trial to take place before the 2024 election.

The Ipsos poll has a margin of error of 3.8 points. It was conducted in late June after Trump had been indicted in both cases. Some 1,005 American adults were surveyed, including 374 Republicans, 441 Democrats and 122 independents. 

See the article here:

Nearly a quarter of Republicans say classified docs charges make them more likely to support Trump: poll - The Hill

To participate in the first Republican presidential debate on Aug. 23, candidates must meet challenging new criteria, including having at least 40,000 donors and voter support of at least 1 percent in three approved polls. But the requirement causing the most consternation is a pledge to support the eventual nominee.

The candidates will be sent the pledge only after meeting the other qualifications, according to a person familiar with the process, and will have until 48 hours before the debate to meet those criteria, giving them until the last minute to make up their minds. Here is what they have said:

Unclear. Former President Donald J. Trump has not said whether he will sign the pledge.

In February, he refused to commit to supporting the eventual nominee, telling the conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, It would have to depend on who the nominee was. But that was before the Republican National Committee made the pledge a debate requirement.

Even if he signs, it is unlikely to mean much. He signed the same pledge in 2015 and then reneged on it.

Unclear. Asked last month whether he would support Mr. Trump in a general election, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida didnt give a straight answer.

Mr. DeSantis vaguely indicated he might make the pledge, saying, You respect the process, and you respect the peoples decisions. But he made no commitment.

Yes. Gov. Doug Burgum of North Dakota has indicated that he will sign the pledge.

Im going to support whoever the Republican candidate is going forward in 2024, he told ABC News.

Mixed messages. Former Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey has suggested he will sign the pledge: I will do what I need to do to be up on that stage, he told CNN.

Im going to take the pledge just as seriously as Donald Trump took it in 2016, he said, adding that he considered it useless and had told the R.N.C. as much.

Yes. Nikki Haley, the former governor of South Carolina and former United Nations ambassador, has committed to signing the pledge.

Absolutely irresponsible that Trump, DeSantis, and others wont commit 100% to supporting the Republican nominee, she wrote on Twitter. Theres no room for personal vendettas in this battle to save our country.

No. Former Representative Will Hurd of Texas is the only candidate who has ruled out signing the pledge.

I cant lie to get access to a microphone, he told CNN, adding: Im not going to support Donald Trump. I recognize the impact that it has on my ability to get access to the debate stage, but I cant lie.

Mixed messages. Former Gov. Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas has ruled out voting for Mr. Trump if he is convicted of a felony, but said he would sign the pledge out of confidence that Mr. Trump wouldnt win the primary.

You would have to make the pledge based on the fact that Donald Trump is not going to be our nominee and youre confident of it, he told ABC News.

He asked the R.N.C. to clarify that there is no pledge to support a nominee if they are found guilty of espionage or a serious felony. (The R.N.C. said no.) At the same time, he says he will do whatever is required because the debates are important.

Mixed messages. Former Vice President Mike Pence initially seemed to commit during a CNN town hall event, saying, Ive always supported the Republican nominee for president in the United States, and Ill support the Republican nominee in 2024.

But he struggled to reconcile that with his assertion that anyone who puts themselves above the Constitution, as he says Mr. Trump did, should never be president.

He said he did not believe that Mr. Trump would win and dodged follow-up questions. I dont think my old running mate is going to be the Republican nominee for president, and Im very confident, very confident, that well be able to support the Republican nominee, he said, suggesting that he might not if it is Mr. Trump.

Mixed messages. The entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy has waffled on the pledge.

In February, he said he would make it. But last month, he gave a caveat: If the other candidates in this race make that pledge, I will stand by and be willing to, he told Fox News, adding, Im ready to play ball, but I require the other candidates to play ball as well.

Yes. Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina has indicated that he will sign.

All Republican candidates would be better than any Democrat candidate, he told Fox News, while saying he was confident he would win the nomination.

Yes. Mayor Francis Suarez of Miami didnt vote for Mr. Trump in 2020 but says he will sign the pledge.

I think every single Republican candidate who wants to be on the debate stage has to pledge to support the nominee, and I will do that as well, he told ABC News.

See the original post here:

Which Republicans Have Pledged to Support Their Nominee - The New York Times

July 08, 2023 7:35 pm Last Updated: July 08, 2023 7:35 pm

I encourage the Republican Party to present strong and dedicated candidates for the upcoming Groton Town Council, Groton City Council, Groton Representative Town Meeting (RTM), and the Groton Board of Education elections.

A diverse and robust representation is crucial for effective local governance. Town and City Councils play a pivotal role in shaping policies that impact our lives. We need passionate individuals with vision and leadership skills to navigate future challenges. It's imperative for Republican candidates to step forward, offering unique perspectives to improve our community.

The RTM and Board of Education ensure efficient resource allocation and quality education. Strong Republican voices can promote balance, fiscal responsibility, and unwavering commitment to academic excellence.

I call upon dedicated Republicans who share these values and are motivated to serve our community. If interested, please contact John Scott at 860-961-4580 promptly. Encouraging participation and a range of candidates will lead to the best outcomes for our beloved community.

John Scott

Mystic

Read the original:

Calling robust Republican representation in Groton - theday.com

Illustration: Jack Darrow; Photos: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

The Republican Party has been in desperate need of a pragmatic leader who can gauge public opinion, shrewdly husband political capital, and advance the partys agenda in sustainable ways. That leader has materialized in the form of John Roberts. The chief justice of the United States is attempting to navigate the disjuncture between voters, who on the whole are sharply divided but have slightly favored Democrats, and the power Republicans have accumulated through the Supreme Court, which is quasi-permanent and unbounded by any other political branch.

In theory, Republicans could use their hammerlock on the high court to settle a long series of social and economic disputes in their partys favor. This is the course many conservatives hoped, and liberals feared, the conservative Court would take, especially after Donald Trump was able to seat three justices and pad its right-wing majority. Instead, Roberts has pursued a more cautious strategy, and the question is if this will be enough to shore up the Courts falling popularity and disarm Democratic threats to overhaul it.

While he has given conservatives high-profile victories on long-standing social divisions like abortion rights and affirmative action, he has also given victories to liberals. In the term that ended in late June, the Roberts Court definitively repudiated the independent state legislature theory, which Trumps supporters had pushed as his vehicle to attempt to overturn the 2020 election and with which other Republicans hoped to enable gerrymandered legislatures to entrench their power. Liberals, having fretted the case was a ticking time bomb for the Republic, exhaled in relief. Former federal judge J. Michael Luttig called the decision the single most important constitutional case for American Democracy since the Nations Founding almost 250 years ago. More surprisingly, the Court, which under Roberts in 2013 undid a crucial pillar of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, issued an expansive voting-rights ruling that will create more Black-majority legislative districts in southern states, which had previously been free to marginalize Black voters. Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh voted with the Courts three liberals in these recent cases, joined by Amy Coney Barrett in the independent state legislature case.

If you were to ask Roberts to explain this pattern, he would no doubt insist he is merely interpreting the law as written. As a nominee in 2005, he famously likened his role to an umpire calling balls and strikes, a conceit he has clung to even as the Courts reputation for above-the-fray independence has dwindled. We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges, he said in 2018 after Trump lashed out at a federal judge over an immigration ruling.

But very few people actually believe him. A decade ago, Roberts reportedly reversed himself in deliberations about a lawsuit to overturn the Affordable Care Act, ultimately crafting a compromise that left in place parts of the law. Last year, reporting indicated he was lobbying Kavanaugh to pull back from a full-scale repeal of Roe v. Wade. The Wall Street Journal ran an extraordinary editorial hinting at the Courts divisions and urging its conservatives to stand firm. (Shortly afterward, Politico obtained the preliminary draft of the courts Roe repeal, a leak that conservatives employed as an argument for forging ahead.) The chief justice may not be taking polls and holding focus groups, but he is acting like a man who is well aware that the popular legitimacy of the institution he leads is in danger.

The historical shadow looming over Robertss calculations is the confrontation between Franklin Roosevelt and the Supreme Court some 90 years ago. Roosevelt had found his economic reforms repeatedly overturned by a right-wing Supreme Court. After winning a landslide election, Roosevelt sought to take control of the Court by adding seats and appointing new and more liberal justices, only for the Courts majority to reverse itself in 1937 and cede economic policy to Congress and the president.

Liberals have long feared that once the new generation of conservatives had gained control of the Supreme Court, it would revert to something like its pre-37 stance. Perhaps the new right-wing jurisprudence would be less overbearing on economic policy, and more aggressive on social policy, than the version of a century ago, but the overall contours of the scenario that kept progressive legal analysts up at night was an unshackled Supreme Court throwing around its weight without fear of backlash.

Why would Roberts hesitate to seize the full range of power at his disposal to the extent that he appears to be going against his own predilections? One reason is that the Courts Republican majority is a historical accident. Unlike the Court that bedeviled FDR, which was the product of decades of Republican dominance that preceded him, the Roberts Court did not earn its majority as the result of Republicans winning a bunch of presidential elections. Democrats have won five of the last eight presidential elections and seven of the last eight popular votes.

The GOP majority on the Court is a combination of better actuarial luck and more selfless partisan teamwork by Republican justices and some ruthlessness by Senator Mitch McConnell. An aging Thurgood Marshall did not stay on the Court long enough for a Democrat to succeed him; McConnell used his Senate majority to prevent Obama from installing Antonin Scalias replacement; Ruth Bader Ginsburg simply refused to step down despite her cancer diagnoses, even while Democrats held the presidency and the Senate; then Anthony Kennedy, despite being a swing justice, stepped down under Trump. Those four events created the current right-wing majority. It is perfectly legal, but it hardly derives from anything like a mandate to reshape American law.

The rules of the Constitution make this result legitimate, too. But the Constitution also allows Democrats to either pack the Court or to reform it fundamentally in ways that would eliminate its Republican majority. They held off using this power when they controlled Congress and the presidency during Bidens first two years. But if the Court exerts its authority in an abusive or too nakedly partisan fashion, the next Democratic Partycontrolled government might decide it has to act. In the aftermath of the affirmative-action decision, President Biden ruled out packing the Court, though he told reporters, This is not a normal Court. This is the exact equilibrium Roberts wants: bad for Democrats, but not existentially bad.

The legitimacy of the conservative Court has been the thematic crux of its burgeoning ethics scandals. The conservative movement has rallied around Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito even as they accepted undisclosed patronage from billionaires, branding reporters uncovering these financial relationships as activists seeking to discredit its prized majority. Roberts took a more conciliatory line, conceding ethics was an issue of concern inside the Court. The respective styles of Roberts and the Courts right wing on ethics mirror their contrasting approach to jurisprudence: He seeks to conserve power by modulating it, and the right-wing justices seek to perpetuate their power by flaunting it.

Robertss strategy appears to be giving Democrats enough trust in the fairness of the Courts decisions, and hope that they can win some future cases, to keep them from flipping over the game board. By the same token, the threat of a Democratic Court-reforming response is a helpful one to keep the Republican judicial majority in check. It remains to be seen whether Roberts and his colleagues will take that bargain or continue a run of precedent smashing that causes Democrats to see the Republican Court as an existential threat.

The myth that judges make rulings completely abstracted from any earthly considerations is the foundation of judicial legitimacy. Roberts, ironically, recognizes that maintaining that legitimacy means acting like a politician while pretending hes just calling balls and strikes.

Thank you for subscribing and supporting our journalism. If you prefer to read in print, you can also find this article in the July 3, 2023, issue of New YorkMagazine.

Want more stories like this one? Subscribe now to support our journalism and get unlimited access to our coverage. If you prefer to read in print, you can also find this article in the July 3, 2023, issue of New York Magazine.

Irregular musings from the center left.

By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice and to receive email correspondence from us.

Read the original post:

John Roberts Is the Last Republican - New York Magazine

Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff offers a prime example that there is no stigma in being the victim of a political persecution. Censured by the House last month on a party-line vote for, in effect, being mean to Trump, Schiff just raised a record-breaking $8.1 million in the second quarter for his California Senate race.

Since taking over the House in January, the Republicans have provided scant evidence that they know how to run a compelling congressional hearing. So it strains credulity that the so-called evidentiary hearings leading up to a House vote on impeachment of Biden or a Cabinet member would sway anyone who doesnt already live in the right-wing fever stamps. When Elise Stefanik, who is supposed to be the telegenic voice of the House Republican leadership, routinely talks of the Biden crime family, you get a sense of how over-the-top GOP rhetoric would be during an impeachment hearing (especially one led by Jim Jordan, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, who is known for intemperate antics and a disdain for suit jackets).

A Senate impeachment trial would provide the Republicans with even narrower room for persuasion, since they would never come close to a two-thirds majority for removal required by the Constitution. Chuck Schumer and the Democratic Senate majority would dictate the schedule and even the rules. Senate impeachment trials have a rich tradition: Chief Justice William Rehnquist even wore a gold-striped judicial robe that looked like a prop from Gilbert and Sullivan to preside over the Clinton trial. But these precedents are malleable, especially since Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has little interest in preordained defeats devoid of political benefit. In fact, NYU law professor Bob Bauerwho is very close to Biden and whose wife, Anita Dunn, is a senior White House adviserargued in a 2019 paper that the Senate may not be constitutionally obliged to hold an impeachment trial.

Excerpt from:

House Republicans' Impeachment Fever Is a Gift to Democrats - The New Republic

I never thought I would say this, but I want to thank Congresswoman Lauren Boebert for filing Articles of Impeachment against President Biden. Shes spent the last three years doing nothing but riling up her base, engaging in performative but useless antics, whining about Twitter and the media, and, generally, embarrassing 49.9% of the voters in her district while having zero legislative accomplishments.

Ah, but in her fact-free fantasy universe, impeaching Biden (despite naming no high crimes or misdemeanors of which he might have committed), then having 66 lawmakers vote to impeach him would be her Holy Grail. Of course, if all of that were to occur, we would be swearing in President Kamala Harris the first woman and first Black woman president.

Kudos to Boebert for doing what the Supreme Court refuses to do advance the cause and progress of Black people. I bow to Boebert the wokest Republican yet for her far-sighted and progressive strategy. I can only hope that the Republican party and MAGA base reward her accordingly in 2024.

Mark Stetz

Durango

Link:

'Boebert wokest Republican yet' The Durango Herald - The Durango Herald

July 08, 2023 7:35 pm Last Updated: July 08, 2023 7:35 pm

Historically, the Ole Town Republican Party has tried to present an image of moderation and common sense (even though in reality they have not always coincided). But let's defer that issue for now. They typically downplay their connection to the national Republican party and tend to focus on local issues confined to this side of the Baldwin Bridge. Their campaign materials rarely even mention the Party. Campaign signs typically say something like, "Vote for Good Ole Tim;" not "Vote for Tim Griswold Republican.

Slowly, over the last two years, Trumpian right wingers have started to stir, certainly making weird noises; and last year one ran for office and was soundly defeated. Now they have made a concerted effort to directly weigh into the cultural wars via the "parental rights" Trojan Horse. Suddenly it's the July 4th and the explosions are going off all around them. Their feet are stuck in the mud, and their leader wrote a long, defensive, muddled article in an attempt to dig their way out.

They might want to start thinking about the old adage, when you are in a hole stop digging, and high tail it back across the Baldwin Bridge.

Howard Margules

Old Lyme

Visit link:

Ole Town Republican Party in a hole - theday.com

The edicts prompted a furious backlash by an architecture world that was already primed for a fight. The preferred-style rule was the handiwork of a traditionalist Washington nonprofit called the National Civic Art Society, which fights for the classical tradition and has condemned modern architecture as dehumanizing. The organization had long criticized the American Institute of Architects, the professional association that voiced outrage against Trumps new rule.

Trump had earlier named the Civic Art Societys president, a conservative architecture critic named Justin Shubow, to the U.S. Commission on Fine Arts, which oversees new buildings in the capital. In January of 2021, as Trump left office, Shubow who, professionals sniffed, was not even an architect was elevated to the commissions chairship.

Soon after taking office, President Joe Biden rescinded the executive orders and removed all but one of Trumps appointees from the Fine Arts Commission, replacing Shubow with the celebrated contemporary architect Billie Tsien.

But as with so many other disruptions of the Trump years, things didnt simply go back to normal in part because Shubow is a determined advocate, and in part because the traditionalists have a point, or at least half a point.

And that half a point is: There are a lot of hideous federal buildings out there!

The growth of government in the decades after World War II happened to take place during one of the most maligned periods in public architecture. Like college campuses, government properties have been among the modernist eras most conspicuous offenders, perhaps because the people commissioning the buildings were not the ones who would have to live or work in them. When its their own private home or business, people tend to be much less deferential to the artistes drawing up the blueprints.

In Shubows telling, that deference is the problem baked right into the 1962 Moynihan document his rivals want to enshrine in law. Design must flow from the architectural profession to the Government, it declares, and not vice versa. Rather than a gesture of support for creativity, he says, the language essentially orders public servants to abandon their duty of keeping an eye on the contractors. (He notes that the AIA, which has blasted the GOP bill in the name of free expression, isnt quite a dispassionate academic group: Its a trade association for architects, ie those very same contractors.)

Shubows organization has commissioned a poll demonstrating that, by a significant percentage, Americans favor more traditionalist forms of architecture. Shouldnt a democratically elected government make sure that its buildings dont alienate the citizens who pay for them?

Well, sure. But the new bills do more than that. In elevating the stature of the Greek- and Roman-inflected buildings favored by Thomas Jefferson and his cohort, it adopts a grimly backward-looking posture in a country that has always been about dynamism and change.

So while its true that the capital was launched by people who obsessed about (small-r) republican style as they set about creating a fledgling republic in an age of monarchies, its also true that said obsession extended well beyond architecture to things like clothing which, thankfully, no one is trying to legislate in the year 2023.

The idea of writing one particular style into law also ignores the tendency of tastes to change and perspectives to vary. Plenty of people including me adore the look of D.C.s Federal Triangle, the massive 1930s constellation of Neoclassical government buildings including the Justice Department, the National Archives and the Department of Commerce. Others think its sweep of columned edifices looks kind of fascist, an association that no one could have imagined when the project was first envisioned in the 1920s.

See the original post:

Republicans Want to Mandate a Single Style of Architecture in ... - POLITICO

Republicans are deeply divided over impeaching President Biden, with newly energized lawmakers on the far right applying pressure to do so and leaders and rank-and-file members concerned they have undertaken a politically risky battle that they cannot win.

A vote last month to send impeachment articles against Mr. Biden for his border policies to the Homeland Security Committee alongside the Judiciary Committee amounted to a stalling tactic by Speaker Kevin McCarthy to quell the urgent calls for action from the hard right. But it has also highlighted the rifts in the House G.O.P. over moving forward and complicating a separate monthslong drive by the panel to prepare an impeachment case against Alejandro N. Mayorkas, the homeland security secretary, for the same offenses.

Neither pursuit appears to have the votes to proceed, and many Republicans are worried that without a stronger case against the president, even trying the move could be disastrous for their party.

Several rank-and-file Republicans from politically competitive districts had balked at the idea of impeaching Mr. Mayorkas, even after Mr. McCarthy endorsed that push. Few believe that the new investigation of Mr. Biden a hastily arranged effort designed to halt a right-wing attempt to impeach the president outright with no investigation will yield anything that could persuade them to oust him.

Were supposed to impeach on high crimes and misdemeanors, said Representative Don Bacon, Republican of Nebraska and a moderate who previously stated he opposed impeaching Mr. Mayorkas over a policy disagreement. When asked whether he was any more inclined to support impeaching Mr. Biden for the same reason, he answered, Not really.

Even among Republicans who support removing Mr. Biden, there is deep skepticism about whether focusing on his border policies is the best place to build an impeachment case against him.

To be frank with you, I think that our issue is a side issue its not the main issue here, said Representative Carlos Gimenez, Republican of Florida and a member of the homeland security panel. He said accusations of financial impropriety involving the presidents son, Hunter Biden, which are being investigated by the House Oversight Committee, are where the president really is going to have the majority of his problems.

But that panel has yet to produce any evidence of wrongdoing by Mr. Biden despite months of scrutiny and the frequent public claims by top Republicans that he has engaged in corrupt and potentially criminal behavior.

The push to impeach Mr. Biden comes amid a fierce struggle between Mr. McCarthy and a right-wing faction of his party that has been in open revolt ever since he struck a debt ceiling deal with the president. That faction includes Representative Lauren Boebert, Republican of Colorado, who forced a vote in June demanding that Mr. Biden be investigated on allegations of having intentionally facilitated a complete and total invasion at the southern border. Her resolution made no mention of Mr. Mayorkas.

The measure thrust Mr. McCarthy into an awkward position. Despite his frequent criticism of Mr. Biden for having failed the country with open-border policies, the speaker has pushed back on efforts to impeach the president, arguing Republicans had yet to articulate a good reason for doing so.

The move also forced the House Homeland Security Committee to abruptly pivot barely a week after Representative Mark Green, Republican of Tennessee and the chairman of the panel, presented a 55-page report detailing why Secretary Mayorkas must be investigated for his border crisis the preliminary findings of an inquiry he has been heralding for months.

Since early spring, Mr. Green has been laying out a sprawling case against Mr. Mayorkas. The representative took his panel to visit points along the U.S.-Mexico border as he tried to back up his assertion that the secretary is to blame for rising unlawful entries, drugs and cartel-related crime and a drop in morale among border patrol officials.

He recently suggested to reporters that the mandate to investigate Mr. Biden could be an extension of his current plans for scrutinizing Mr. Mayorkas, which he has said will take place in five phases, beginning with a look at whether the homeland security secretary was derelict in his duty.

Weve been looking into the complete failures, the Biden administrations complete failures at the southwest border, Mr. Green told reporters, adding that when it comes to Mr. Bidens personal actions, we will dig deeply into it.

What exactly he meant was not clear. While Mr. Green has frequently claimed Mr. Mayorkas is culpable for carrying out the Biden administrations border plans, he has also argued that the case against the secretary is more egregious than mere policy disagreements. He has accused him of having either violated or subverted at least 10 laws and having blatantly lied to the United States Congress under oath on multiple occasions and lied to the American people at least 58 times charges the Department of Homeland Security denies.

Mr. Green has also avoided describing the goal of his panels work as impeachment, saying it would be up to the Judiciary Committee to make such determinations. That stance now clashes with the Houses explicit instruction to his committee to investigate Mr. Biden on impeachment charges.

The Judiciary Committee traditionally writes and approves articles of impeachment before they are sent for a vote by the full House. The recent vote on Ms. Boeberts measure sent the articles against Mr. Biden to both panels.

In the absence of clear direction, Republicans on the homeland security panel are struggling to figure out how to prioritize their new Biden-focused charge without undermining their ongoing inquiry into Mr. Mayorkas. Some suggested that the new priority would prolong the committees work on Mr. Mayorkas, which Mr. Green had predicted would wrap up in early fall.

It might change timing, said Representative August Pfluger, Republican of Texas, adding that while it was probably important to continue on both tracks, the referral for Mr. Biden made that line of inquiry really important.

Others suggested that completing a case against Mr. Mayorkas would only help them to build an argument against Mr. Biden, who set the policies Mr. Mayorkas has carried out.

Our focus on Secretary Mayorkas has been squarely over enforcement of immigration law and border policy, but I think the subject matter was limited, said Representative Dan Bishop, Republican of North Carolina. This inevitably opens it up to other questions.

Luke Broadwater contributed reporting.

Originally posted here:

Republicans Are Divided on Impeaching Biden as Panel Begins ... - The New York Times