good afternoon everybody and thank you for joining us. we received the impeachment

articles tomorrow or next week, the democratic leader plans on holding the process to stop and impeachment trial. make no mistake about it a vote to block the impeachment trial is a vote to keep our borders open, a vote to block the impeachment trial is a vote to tell lincoln reilly's family we don't care, to tell 250,000 americans who lost a loved one to fentanyl poisoning that we don't care. it's significant that it would only take two democrats to deny tabling this process in order to proceed with an impeachment trial, but we certainly don't think that is going to be the case. why? because this issue is so toxic the senate democrats, house democrats and joe biden that they do not want this to be the issue of the day. my hope is the good people of

montana and ohio, wisconsin, michigan, nevada, pennsylvania, that they hold their senators accountable this november. to make onele thing clear befori turn over to my colleagues, tabling this impeachment article is a nuclear option. in our estimation this is a nuclear option and it will necessitate some type of nuclear retaliation much as harry reid went nuclear in 2013 to get his judges moving forward invoking the nuclear option that came back to bite them in 2017. i look forward to my colleagues prosecuting the case on behalf of the american people and sharing why we need to go forward with this impeachment to trial. i think senator kennedy is the

first one here. >> a charitable interpretation of what senator schumer is planning to do does not exist. he is going to either make a motion to table or to dismiss the work done by the u.s. house of representatives. in our 200 plus year history, we have had 21 public officials impeached by the united states house of representatives. we have held trials in all but three. in three instances we dismissed the charges because the

officials resigned. the other incident we dismissed the charges because it involved a senator and we did not believe we had the authority to hold an impeachment of a senator. now those were the facts. iac fully expect senator schumer to try to muddy up the water to try to make it look deep, this is really very simple. we are either going to follow the senate rules and history, or we are not and if he chooses and hend may have the votes to do i, if he chooses to dismiss these articles without so much as a trial as if it were just spam,

it will be further evidence that under this administration the senate has been rotting from within. under this administration we don't do a budget anymore. the leadership just gets together and writes the bill. sometimes they cut the budget bill and make it into many bills but still it does the same thing. this is just one more step. what are we here for? impeaching a public official by the united states house of representatives after months and months of investigations and witnesses and then taking the vote is one of the most solemn acts that the house can do and to senator schumer is just going

to dismiss that? not even go to trial because he thinks he has the vote and is politically expedient, isn't that special. every one of you here know is that if republicans were doing the same thing, you would be catatonic and foaming at the mouth. that's what he's doing and it is wrong and we are going to do everything we can to stop it. originally senator schumer planned to do this on the first when everybody is trying to get back to their districts, isn't that special. wonder why he p picked it. we asked and i understand the speaker we asked them to delay y sending over the articles until monday, to at least give us a

full week. we will see if he honors the extra time. this is unconscionable. this ranks up there with getting rid of the filibuster. we are either going to have a united states senate as set up by the founders were we are not and that's what is going on here. >> we all know chuck schumer is playing politics with this. he has members that are very likely going to lose his seeds and he doesn't want them to have to take a vote on this and 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 he's trying to be queued and devise a way to not have a trial. here's what he had to say in

2019ri prior to the impeachmentf president trump, he said and i will quote we will do well to remember our constitutional duty to act as judges and jurors in a potential trial. so he fully realizes that this is our constitutional duty. it is ascribed to us to take up these articles and hold a trial, but he is so power-hungry the only thing he can focus on is the november election and what he is willing to do is to tossed the constitution aside so he can protect some of his members. it is imperative that we take the information from the house and it's imperative that we hold

a trial of the secretary who has neglected his duty. think about it, we have a homeland security secretary that does not believe in securing the homeland. >> a moment ago senator kennedy referred to this is t akin to a nuclear option. this is certainly the most violent act undertaken in the united states senate, against the institutions of the senate and its time-honored t traditios since november of 2013 when he deployed the nuclear option on the executive calendar filibuster. inin a sense this is even more serious. on the one hand we deal more frequently on a day-to-day basis

with the filibuster. on the other hand, this effort to nuke our traditions is even more serious here because unlike the filibuster that is rooted in tradition in the rules, this one teis rooted in the constitution, article one gives the house the power to impeach and gives the senate the power and the duty to conduct trials of impeached officials. there've been 20 onsets of articles of impeachment past by the house ofof representatives d the history of the republic. and i believe it is 17 out of the 21 cases where the senate conducted a trial and they culminated in a verdict of guilty or not guilty and the remaining cases the senator

didn't conduct a trial or reach a verdict of guilty or not guilty but only because between the time when the house adopted the articles and they reached or had not reached the senate, the person holding office either died or left office looting the case and obviating the need for a trial. there is no plausible justification for invoking any of those historical antecedents here as he is very much alive and still the secretary of homeland security. so with that respect, what they are nuking here is not just a precedent world ruled that a provision of the constitution andon time-honored duty in the united states senate they are nuking the provision of the constitution. so separate and apart from how you feel about the secretary and the performance of his duties, anyone who fancies him or

herself, someone concerned about the senate as an institution for that reason alone should they be willing to stand up to this form of legislative tyranny and to say we've got an obligation to do this? now d on the merits i would aska series of questions that one way or another regardless where you stand need to be answered so for example, if you think secretary mayorkas has not defiantly refused to enforce our laws then let's hold a trial. if you disagree that he is allowed over 430,000 unaccompanied minor children in recent months into the united states then let's hold a trial, if you think he hasn't dangerously loose into the restrictions and efforts to vet people entering from china including a whole lot of military age men crossing the

border, let's hold a trial. if you believe we haven't seen a dramatic increase in known terrorist suspects entering the border, then let's hold a trial because after all it can either acquit or 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 are required under the constitution. we have nearly twoo and a half centuries of precedent backing up that constitutional duty. why depart from this now? even and especially if you think he's innocent of the impeachable offenses of which he's been accused. if it has nothing to hide, i'm

very grateful to the 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 thee influence of jet fuel intoxication. that was precisely the plan and it's much better for us to do this at the beginning of the legislative weekve rather than towards the end and i thank himm for doing that. >> we are witnessing a profound threat to the nation at the southern border. joe biden, paris and the administration is deliberately and willfully facilitating the criminal invasion of this country. it's the humanitarian crisis, public safety crisis, it's a national security crisis. when mayorkas last testified before the senate judiciary committee i asked how many migrants died last year crossing into the country and he said i don't know. the number is 853 but this

administration doesn't care about the body bags that the open borders are producing. when joe biden stood before congress and gave the state of the union address he planned in his remarks not to say a word about lincoln riley the beautiful 22-year-old woman the nursing student murdered by an illegal alien joe biden and mayorkas released into this country. m when biden gave the state of the union address he didn't mention the name jeremy the 2-year-old little boy murdered miles away from here in prince george county again by an illegal alien that joe biden and mayorkas released into this country. he also didn't mention the illegal immigrant that flew from haiti to america, released and

who then violently raped a 15-year-old girl in boston massachusetts who was severely disabled. what we are witnessing is evil and it is wrong. that is why the house of representatives impeached mayorkas becausehe he has aided and abetted the criminal invasion of this united states. and yet they don't want to talk about it. even worse, chuck schumer and the democrats want to defy the constitutional responsibility. twenty-one times in the nation's history the house of representatives has sent articles of impeachment over to the senate, 21 times. he's only the second cabinet member ever to be impeached. the last time a cabinet member was impeached was 1876, 148 years ago.

what he has done this extraordinary and its consequences are profound. under theit constitution, the responsibilities of the senate or simple and straightforward, they are to try this impeachment. chuck schumer doesn't want to do that. instead he wants to table the whole thing and he wants to move the table the article of impeachmenten reason number one, he doesn't want to allow the house managers to present the evidence of mayorkas end of this administration's willful decision to aid and a bed this criminal invasion oftt this country. the second reason he wants to table the articles of impeachment as he doesn't want a trial. he does not want the american people to seet the facts when

each of us lay out the facts of what's going on no democrat argues there's not another slide. they don't defend it and to sayt it's a graded don't worry about the people dying, don't worry about the children being't raped or the mexican drug cartels making billions of dollars, the democrats have no response. the response is they count on the media not to report it. that's their entire strategy. and the third reason he does not want to senate democrats particularly those on the ballot in november to vote guilty or not guilty because it is indisputable he is guilty and not just guilty of aiding and abetting the invasion of the last three and a half years and everyf dead body that has resulted, but to guilty tomorrow and the next day and the next dayth he intends to continue facilitating and accelerating this criminal invasion. if the 21 times the house voted

on 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 the person impeached was out of office and the case was moved. in every case where the individual was still in office and all 17 the senate conducted a trial and adjudicated and came to a decision, guilty or not guilty. in 2013, harry reid nuked to the filibuster. that did enormous damage to the institution of the united states senate. in 2024, he 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 that it is used. if and when donald trump wins in november and god forbid democrats have the house, they will impeach him again and probably again and again and again. and whatai he's deciding is the senateat no longer has to try impeachment's, but instead can hide behind procedural games. anyone who cares about the security of the country should oppose what he's doing and vote to convict anyone who cares about the united states senate and 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 he so terrified to have a trial on what is happening in our southern border. the answer is he cannot to

defend it and desperately wants to keep it hidden and secret from the american people. >> thank you for sponsoring this press conference and thanks all of you for coming here. i want to thank the legal mind is for laying out the case of why we must hold a trial. i'm going to make a practical case.e the reason chuck schumer wants to table it is this chart. i was with president trump last week traveling with him and of course we talked about the border and i showed him the chart i've been developing since i was the chair of homeland security in 2014 and beyond updating it monthly, the disaster that was on child rivals that sparked this massive under biden invasion of the country. president trump like to the church and adapted and modified it for his own use. it's gotten more publicity as a result. about one of thehe commentators

said that this will absolve tdecide. that's why senator schumer doesn't want to hold this trial. i've made one additional modification. what i liked about the chart and i tried to describe is the cause and effect starting with the reinterpretation of the decision of a the fact that president trp was faced with his own border crisis, but he fixed it. you will notice his peak under 500,000 people a day on average encountered within 12 months he reduced that down to about 500 a day. i've added to thehe chart now explosions under title 42 so even though it's increasing in about maysi of 2020 during the election year because democratic presidential candidates provide free healthcare, that was the

incentive.nc the biden administration, democrats, they are incentivizing so more people started coming, but because of covid, president trump invoked title 42. you can see the incredibly small numbers of people under the trump administration that president trump allowed in the country. we had pretty well secured our border. so the next step of passing a functioning system, we want to fix these problems. but unfortunately america made the wrong choice and elected president biden and democrats controlled 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 the authority to close the border. president trump using existing law. president biden used the same authority and opened it up. so you can see the explosion from the end of the trump administration where we had at the border closed and then the explosion and the gap that allowed it to expire but even without that, even using title 42 they welcomed and incentivized families, unaccompanied children and subjected them to the depredations that open border policies sentne some of the most evil people on the planet, the human traffickers, the sex traffickers, the drug traffickers poisoning the cities. that's what biden and the democrats, and this is important to note this is democrat

policies, that'sic what must be defeated but to senator schumer wants to nip this in the bud because he doesn't want to house thehouse managers to make the ce to explore exactly what happened and how their actions, how their policies are causing this invasion. they don't want to be held accountable. that's why the trial is an imperative in the senate and why i appreciated what the secretary just announced about he's going to delay the delivery of these things so he doesn't have thursday at 1:00 to snuff this out so again thank you senator marshall. thank you. >> politically speaking if there were a mount rushmore in the history of the country, he would be on as one of the faces. legally speaking, he's subverted the wallsls of the united state, and that is what this is all

about. but before we get there, we have to have a trial. the constitution calls for it. in the history of the country as you've heard here today, what chuck schumer is 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 when we raise our right hand and take this office, something we are supposed to do, chuck schumer is willing to throw all of that away because he's afraid for a couple of news cycles. o and we hear a lot about the threats to democracy. there's one party in the country trying to throw a political rival of theow ballot, throw him in jail for the rest of his life, destroy the senate and end impeachment forever.

that is what their game plan is. i would ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, this is our job regardless of how you're going to vote because 200 years from now, people will look back, senators we don't know their names, will look back at what happened to the next seven days and it will set the course for the rest of american history, but there's no going back. once you break it 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. to the right thing, hold the trial and let the chips fall where they made. i want to make one more point and open it up for questions. senator schumer is unleashing another nuclear weapon here.

but imagine what the retaliation mightily, imagine the day and time we have a republican president, democratic-controlled house, they impeach the president, send it to a republican-controlled senate, and the senate says we are going to table it. i just think americans into the national media would lose their mind over it but we are letting schumer get by with it for whatever reason. >> [inaudible] >> there's a whole different set

of rules. legislative counter, executive and impeachment calendar. the process to negotiate the precise and the subject by the presiding officer in this instance patty murray because the president is not on trial and so in the unfortunate event they decide to pursue in all cases the party in control of the majority of the senate finds itself in opposition.

since conducting to impeachment trials the first came to us when republicans were r in control. we've seen with its own obligations and on the legislative calendar we saw the senate and the house transferring a disproportionate share. the portion of federal appointees subject to the senate confirmation. a trifecta.

there will be more time. >> short answer is we are going to file points of order but senator schumer can block those. we will have a lot of points of order because this is blatantly unconstitutional. but the prout tem will be in the chair and she doesn't have to recognize us. it's possible senator schumer would get her to only recognize him and we wouldn't even have a chance to make a point of order. so much for democracy. >> moving forward we may not be providing that consent.

>> and also you can influence this. why is he trying desperately to define the constitution and not have a trial? because he doesn't want the american people to hear the facts about what this administration hasct done and hw many have died as a result. and of the motion to table he believes the press will be compliant.t. how many of you are going to write a story tomorrow but says chuck schumer and the democrats divide 200 years of history and for the first time refused to hold a trial on impeachment? i suspect there are not going to be many stories. why is he wanting to do this? the press he believes well 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 and how many of you have asked sherrod brown or tammy baldwin they are all in the ballot and that is who he is

trying to protect from having to hear the evidence and fulfill the constitutional ibresponsibility he believes the press won't report on what he's doing. >> you mentioned those that are up for reelection and there's even some republicans that are questioning talking to reporters today senator romney wasn't sure what he t would do. when you have someone saying they don't know -- >> every senator to vote their conscience and obviously he's done it for reelection. maybe there's a reason not giving up. i would tell you the super majority of republicans i know back home are demanding some sort of accountability, and i'm not sure about a town hall he's going to and listening to but it's not the same town hall i'm listening to.

the founders purposely were you suggesting [inaudible] >> yes. and it was surprising, 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 or what it's intended to become of the article one branch the legislative branch, congress where we work always because we have one branch that makes the law. we have one branch that enforces or is supposed to and a third that interprets it. those are subservient to the dominant role of making the law. we said the policy and decide what should be and then we say

this is what it means, this is what was enacted and what it actually says. so we are by far the most dangerous branch and that is why they entrusted it only most accountable to the people with of the most regular intervals. first the chance to fire every representative 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. for the sake of avoidance of criticism that's the road to tyranny. that ought to scare you.

>> you said last week you want to have a full week [inaudible] >> i don't know that it's going to take an entire week to go through the round of arguing. i would hope to make it not i ey for them to do it. what i'm saying is if we don't started until the end of the week, that leaves us no adequate opportunity to debate and you don't want them trying to get out of town so quickly. >> is there are two ways this can and should receive. the senate under the rules immediately moves into the court of impeachment and typically the beginning of that is negotiating the resolution that plays out how it will proceed. there's two ways to do it.

they can be on the floor of the senate that is what happened if it 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, not the entire senate, that is the s way that it's typically been done for impeachments beyond the level. to convene and conduct the trial the way that we did we believed that would be the best way to do it but it's not the only way to do it. the only way would be next week when the articles of impeachment are received to the point the committee that would then conduct the trial in the committee and that would enable if there's other legislative matters theyha could proceed on parallel cracks so any democrat who tellss you we've got other things to turn to.

under the existing rules the senate could appoint an impeachment committee to conduct a trial in front of the american people and the senate could simultaneously proceed. >> [inaudible] we would need the majority of the conference to agree with that strategy but we believe it ought to be on the table. if senator schumer disrespects the d traditions but is willingo do thiss nuclear option on impeachment power, i think we should challenge him and let him realize it's not easy going from now in debate.

>> this isn't some amendment on the bill, this is the constitution in 240 plus years. my personal view is the consequences ought to be commensurate with the action. and this is again short ending the filibuster there's no more you can do to diminish this from the constitutional responsibility. it's something we mp are supposed to do so my personal view is there ought to be a cost. you haven't spoken to anyone. i'm going to vote to not table since this is happening. >> what kind of question.

the benefit of the delay is they have a chance to talk about the issue. if you want to go back and write an article whether your page is holding you back, you can do that or you can write about this issue. maybe talking about it for a few days before we take the constitution and turn it upside down just might be a wise thing to do. you know as well as i do we have some free range chickens and they want to go out and sometimes we can't catch them.

of all the questions being asked, you're following under senator schumer's track because he will try to muddy up the water to make it deep. there is nothing complicated about this. you either believe in the constitution or you don't. >> there was a strong consensus so we can have these discussions. b we feel it's important to have so again that was unanimous consent. ask anybody, no we didn't. there might be democrats who actually care about the constitution. it allows them to get away and let's be clear the question what difference does it make doing it on a thursday afternoon, everyone of you covers capitol

hill afternoon. they rush to get out of here. he wants it on a thursday because he wanted to go quickly. the advantage of starting the week with it we ought to do our job. the question asked a minute ago you don't have the votes, understand what you say when you say we don't have the votes. you know every. it doesn't care about the people being killed over the 100,000 who died of drug overdoses last year. it doesn't care about the little boys and girls being violently sexually assaulted. but they don't look them in the eyes. every one of us here we've seen children and women who've been brutalized by the cartels and your question assumes no democrat cares.

they are all okay with the open borders. by the way, remember that when yout write the story about each of the democrats saying i'm very concerned about border security because they are going to claim they are very concerned about it. if they are, we ought to have a trial and a the reason. the only is political power. public sentiment and public opinion does drive and the impeachment trial. 1974, i'm, a young boy watching the watergate hearings into those hearings.

the press has a responsibility now i hope to talk about the significance of this nuclear option. go ahead. >> [inaudible] you know and i know. >> you mentioned plaintiff worker. i know you said it's up to them but what are your ideas in terms of -- >> well, i am not going to tell you, just to stay tuned. i will tell you this, you will be impressed. >> i have lots of points of order. if senator schumer walks in and gives the sign to the speaker

pro tem, he won't recognize anybody that senator schumer. this thing is unconstitutional. it's clearly unconstitutional. >> what is the bare minimum you need to see to satisfy how this went before those? >> i on a trial. to consider the evidence and make it a combination they will have that responsibility and by the way, we have all seen that happened. it happened twice the democrats impeached donald trump and with the puppetry analogies.

.. constitutional response ability seriously now and i can promise you the next time we see an and impeachment [inaudible] you're not going to see a trial. you're seeing the democrats the race the class of the constitution and that is a serious, serious threat to the rule of law. >> clear in the back. to go straight to a trial or to have -- >> i am proposing we go straight

into a trial. senator cruz has a different one that would propose we have it handled by a select committee. i think most of us would prefer the former but either one would satisfy. >> last question. >> the first of that he will uphold one of the counts sites several specific instances where secretary mayorkas instructed employees. is that a policy disagreement? >> that is a violation of the law. >> and understand mayorkas is not impeached for being incompetent for being negligent. this invasion is not an

accident. it's not that they are bad at upthe job. sadly, it is that mayorkas is very good at the job that he is 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 clouding the law. i said several times joe biden has done something i thought was impossible. he made me miss barack obama. barack obama did lots of things i disagreed with. there's 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 deported millions of people. they called him the deep order in chief. we've never seen a president of the united states do what joe biden is doing, which is utterly clouding the law. not only is mayorkas not trying to secure the border, he is trying to accelerate illegal

immigration. he wants to 10.4 million illegal immigrants to become 20 million, 30, 40 million because he used all his future democratic votes and so this is different from saying he's not very good at his job. this is openly defying the law and aiding and abetting mexican criminal cartels, human and drug traffickers that have become billionaires because of these open border policies. >> a final comment because i want to disagree with senator cruz. president obama sparked this invasion on the childhood arrivals memorandum. there was a lawless act that caused all of this and by the way, i do have that new chart for all of you. i've got a couple dozen copies. >> and by the way, he's got a tattoo of the chart. [laughter] >> thanks, everybody. there's copies righter 15

minutes.