Tom is no scum bag. He’s maintained a lifetime CPAC rating of 98%, and most years it’s closer to 100%, but there are times, like this, where he thinks too hard and trips over his feet.
This year, he’s been caught up in normalcy bias, thinking that the battle is still between conservatives (which Tom without a doubt is), and Liberals, not understanding that the terms have changed. The Conservatives lost. Now the populist right is in what may be the last fight for this nation, opposing the totalitarian, radical left.
In this case, Tom’s using the old, conservative logic of looking at the Constitution, reading it, and applying it dispassionately. And he’s correct: this is a political disagreement, and any “high crime or misdemeanor” in the traditional sense.
What Tom’s not taking into account, IMHO, is that the Democrat opposition burned those old rules to the ground with their two fake, sham, unconstitutional impeachments of Trump, followed up with four sham, unconstitutional and unprecedented weaponized indictments. He’s playing by the old rules, which is frustrating, but he’s been solid on a range of issues for a long time, and is going to be needed in congress during Trump’s second term.
“And he’s correct: this is a political disagreement, and any “high crime or misdemeanor” in the traditional sense.”
How is deliberately enabling a foreign invasion of ten million just a “political disagreement” ?
“lifetime CPAC rating of 98%”
That’s for over 15 years.
You can count on one hand his peers.
This is what I believe has happened. We’ve known Tom for many years, used to live in his district and know some of his staff. He is conservative but playing by the old rules. I believe my own son has the same mindset. it tends to be frustrating that they don’t seem to see what the Dems have done.
And he’s correct: this is a political disagreement, and NOT any “high crime or misdemeanor” in the traditional sense.
************************************************************
In your statement above, I added the word “NOT”. When I do that, your sentence makes sense to me.
I also agree with everything you said except that “Lying to Congress is NOT a felony. I say that because according to Wikipedia, it is. I have added that statement by Wikipedia as the very last paragraph in this comment.
But, section 1621 and 1001 of Title 18 would seem to apply to Mayorkas. See below:
Q: What are the rules about lying to Congress?
A: Glad you asked. If you are testifying in front of Congress sometime soon, and are wondering how far you can bend the truth, there are a two key statutes governing perjury you need to be aware of: U.S. Code sections 1621 and 1001 of Title 18.
Section 1621 covers general perjury, and stipulates that anyone who “willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true” is guilty of perjury and shall be fined or imprisoned up to five years, or both. Section 1001 covers false statements more generally, without requiring an oath. The section stipulates that “whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the government of the United States, knowingly and willfully” falsifies or conceals information, including before a congressional committee’s inquiry, may also be fined or imprisoned up to five years.
In the United States, the general perjury statute under federal law classifies perjury as a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to five years.