[inaudible conversations]agers m

during their remarks. this is 50 minutes. [inaudible conversations] [laughter] knox -- [inaudible conversations] >> everything's okay. >> good afternoon. it's a pleasure to be with you today, and it's a pleasure to be joined by a number of my senate

colleagues and our house counterparts including members of the house prosecution team. we just witnessed something that has occurred only now 22 times in american history. on 21 prior occasions, the house of representatives has passed articles of impeachment. in 17 out of those 2 21 cases -- 21 cases, the result has been the culmination of a trial in the senate resulting in a finding of guilty or not guilty, of conviction or of acquittal. it's not only expected, but required under the constitution that we should do this under article i, section three, clause 6 of the constitution. finish the senate shall have power to try all impeachment. that means all impeachments. the only 4 exceptions out of those 21 that i mentioned are instances in which the case became moot or we lacked scwurs

diction -- jurisdiction in the first instance. we don't lack jurisdiction in this instance. in fact, we have it. secretary mayorkas is still in office. unlike those four, he was neither a member of the u.s. senate and, therefore, not subject technically to the impeachment, but rather expugs, nor is he deceased or left office. so we retain subject matter jurisdiction where expected and, in fact, or required to conduct a trial. and what that means is we are sworn in, we're going to be sworn in tomorrow as senators, as performing the equivalent of the judge-jury function where we're both find ifers of fact -- finders of fact and also a imbued with the authority to decide questions of laureltive to the impeachment trial. -- relative. what all of that presupposes is that we will reach a finding of guilt or innocence, guilty, not guilty. we shouldn't be sidestepping this. now, previously chuck schumer9 and the democrats have talked a

lot about a just wanting to table this. never in the history of the united states senate have we addressed articles of impeachment with a motion to table. ..

>> i have yet to hear any articulation of their theory hitted for them to insist and we just read and heard and read along with the chairman of the house impeachment committee representative mark green from the state of tennessee. you take all those facts to be true as i believe we must in this circumstance till we've had a chance to be finders of fact ourselves. there could be no doubt what the case for impeachment can be made and has been made here and that we must convene a trial to find the facts and reach ultimate verdict as guilt or innocence. we'll turn now to friend and colleague from texas, senator cruz.

>> we've just witnessed history being made. only 22 times in our nation's history has the house of representatives presented and delivered articles of i mpeachment to the senate. only twice in our nation's history has a cabinet member been impeached by the house. the stakes of this impeachment are not some technical violation of law but rather an enormous and growing threat to the lives and avety of millions of americans. every jeer we see millions c rossing into the country and actively aiding and abetting ad the invasion of illegal aliens and the con generalses have been day after day after day migrants

dying. 853 in the last year. the consequences have been day after day after day, little boys and little girls being b rutalized by human traffickers. the consequences have been day after day after day. hundreds and even thousands of women being sexually sexual assaulted by human traffickers. a level never been seen in history and in 2018, drug c artels made 500 million from human trafficking. in 2022, they made $13 billion. the single greatest friend the human traffickers have ever had has been joe biden and alejando

mayorkas and under their open border policy, the drug cartels have seen the revenues rise 4,602%. every week, we see another horrific crime committed by criminal illegal aliens that joe biden and alejandro mayorkas continue to release with laken riley, beautiful 22-year-old woman in georgia, nursing student and out for a jog and so many other women out for a jog today, believing they live in a country where their safety will be protected and it should have been. but joe biden and alejandro mayorkas deliberately defied the law and apprehended her killer when he came illegally into the country in el paso. joe biden is alejandro mayorkas followed a law and put him on the plane and flew him back to venezuela and laken riley would

still be alive. they defied the law and let him go. they went to new york city, another sanctuary city where he was apprehended again this time for endangering the safety of a child. if new york city simply followed the lawsuit and put him in jail, headachen reilly would be alive but again, new york city let him go and murder came down to georgia and beat laken riley to death with a brick.

the consequences are terrifying. the men and women, the house manager who is are here and thank you for junior service coming here and should scare the democrats and tomorrow we're going to see chuck schumer throw out 20 oyers of history and ignore the constitution. why? because he does not want these managers to present the evidence of the people dying because of their policies. not just that have died yesterday and the day before but the people that will die tomorrow. you want to know how terrified

the democrats democrats are ofe evidence? everyone recognizes the single most endangered democrat senator on the ballot is john tester from montana. i don't know how many of the reporters were in the chamber for the reading of the articles but john tester was standing on the floor. before the managers arrived and as soon as the managers arrived, tester turned and ran. presumably to the cloak room. if you look at democrat's side virtually every democrat was there and john tester was nowhere to be found. because apparently too f rightening to hear the managers read the facts of the people dying because of policy he supports and as soon as house managers were done, as you'll walk off the floor. john tester came from the cloak room and back on the senate floor. when sitting democrat senators have to go into witness protection, it tells you they

cannot defend their inhumane policy. the senate has a clear obligation under the constitution and 200 years of precedent we need to hold a trial, we need to allow the managers to present the evidence and every one of us following the law should convict and remove alejandro mayorkas for aiding and abetting a criminal invasion of the united states of america. >> i want you to forget for a moment the debate over the law and the process and how many lawyers can dense on the head of a pen.

and think about what will be happening here over the next two days. you just heard on the floor of the united states senate what i heard. the united states house of representatives as i said the other day, we're not talking about some snow bro that likes chicken mcnuggets and weed and has an opinion. we're not talking about some game boy with a ketamine stash who's living in his parent's basement and who has an opinion. though both are entitled to have a opinion. we're talking about the united states house of representatives after investigating not for days

but for months has voted to bring two charges, two articles of impeachment that are serious, they're serious as ann uroism and doesn't happen very often and it's happened only 22 times. he held a trial and we allowed both and evidence including the united states house of

representatives. how do you know every other case and every other case of i mpeachment and the official quit and the united states senate heard the evidence.

this is raw, gut politics and you know it and i know it and the american people know it. the american people may be p oorer under president biden but they are not stupid. they know a whitewash when they see it. what senator schumer is going to do tomorrow, it is fact yous, it is fraudulent and it is an insult to the senate and it is a disservice to every american citizen that believes in the rule of law.

>> good evening, everybody. not having an impeachment trial is a true threat to the public and not having the impeachment trial is unconstitutional and simple country doctor like myself can read the constitution and see after the impeachment articles are deliver that had we should have an impeachment t rial. it's important that everybody understands it only takes two owe three democrat senators to force an impeachment trial and two or three of them and they'd force the trial to go forward. a vote to stop the impeachment rather through tabling or discharging it and a vote to keep the border open. . it's a vote to tell the families of laken riley we don't care. it's a vote to tell the 250,000 families that have lost a loved one to fentanyl poisoning that it doesn't matter that law and recorder doesn't matter. >> i certainly hope the folks in

states like montana and pennsylvania, michigan and wisconsin, arizona and nevada are paying attention. they have a opportunity to reach out to their senator and ask them to have an impeachment trial and said and hold them accountable in november. story after story we can tell many and senator cruz told you a couple stories in montana. illegal alien that's previously charged of promoting a 19-year-old man to death and sentenced for 40 years and also in montana, the dea seized 77 million fentanyl pills and 12,000 in 2023 alone and enough to kill every american. in ohio, butler county, ohio, to be more specific and illegal mexican gang member here in the united states with 11 prior arrests was charged with

aggravated murder while intoxicated and in possession of drugs and in clinton, ohio, a state trooper pulled over a mini van with 11 people and covered a human trafficking ring. folks not having an impeachment trial sun constitutional and it's not right. americans are demanding accountability. secretary mayorkas is truly doing biden bidding and they both need to be held a ccountable. thank you. sitting in the chamber and the articles were read by the house chambers and couldn't help but be struck by the gravity of the moment. i do think that the people that are in this room oftentimes are easy to get caught up in the 24

hour news psychoand will always something happening and always something new and things shift quickly and it's appropriate for us to take a step back. and recognize how significant this is. our constitution set up a process by which office holders like secretary mayorkas could be held accountable for violating the law in the constitution for me listening to that and reading along and my hope is to hear further evidence while court cases were cited and i happen to be the attorney general that brought them and challenging the biden administration and h andling situation at the border and the court's remedy was to uphold what they were doing or strike it down. we have a different remedy. it is up to the senate to decide that. they're sidestepping it and significant issues over 240 y ears+ in this country. never once has the united states stat said we're not going to do

that because we don't like the news cycle or the narrative. we've got a couple people who are up and vulnerable in an election cycle. when we raise our right hand and take the oath, take precedence over the stuff we do and we're moving to go to the impeachment calendar. i suppose i'll close to chuck schumer imself, >> look at mom,

dad, brother, sister, child or grandchild. people like your family have been raped, sold into human trafficking, murdered, it happened. happened all over the country and cases in florida and all over the country. i don't know why biden is mayorkas and the deputies are d oing what they're doing but if you just think about your family for a second, we cherish all those people. biden, mayorkas and democrats said they don't care.

if i was mayorkas. he's been impeached and he has the opportunity now to say he didn't do anything wrong. he knows he can't defend h imself, biden knows they can't defend it. chuck schumer can't defend it or pure politics and they don't want you to talk about it and be beyond television. all of its wrong. so the right thing that happened tomorrow is we have to start a trial. we hear the evidence and house of representatives in contrast to the trump impeachment and they took time and got evidence and should have the opportunity to present it and we should have the opportunity to say yes or no.

>> very convincing case to hold a trial and chairman green did an excellent job of reading those and going for senator schmidt and the chamber and listening to the gravity of the charges and i don't know how you cannot be moved and i can't imagine why chuck schumer would dismiss even thinking of having a trial. if we had a trial, we could lay out the evidence and developing on chairman homeland security in 2015, this at trial would basically be irrefutable dna evidence of the crime. he repeatedly lied to congress and one of the biggest is we

confirm with the evidence, there's no crisis. it's not a problem. it's a challenge, senator. the chart shows cause and effect and dating back to president obama's law lastage f ertilizerred action childhood arrivals arrivals and sparked all of t his. we want to concentrate on and turn over to house managers is when president trump faced his immigration issue where almost 5,000 people a someday were crossing in a single month. he did something about it. and in 2018, the supreme court ruled the current law exudes deference to the president and reading the interpretation decision and president trump use that had weakened executive without closing the burdener 12 months.

that's high crime and put americans at risk and cost american lives. that's why the case is so c ompelling and that's why the senate must hold a trial. again i commend the house managers for coming over putting together a strong case against the secretary but a strong case to have a trial and turn it over to chairman green. >> thank you, sir. >> first, thank senators for sharing the pulpit and thank each of you for being here and the american people thank you for communicating in to them. the unbelievable privilege in

the united states army and interviewing saddam hue san the night we caught him and i asked hussain why he invaded kuwait and was the king of the world and could do whatever he wanted and the thought struck me at that moment, olded adage that d old power corrupts and old power into the hands and this man you get tierney every time. each with their own responsibilities and separate from the other and our responsibility was to write the law and the executive branch was to execute the law. not to pick and choose which ones they wanted to but to execute the laws and immigration and nationality act is clear shall detain. criminal felons detain and deport the law says it. nowhere does the law say to

district attorney capture every murder and in the case of this law, it says you shall detain everyone. mr. myoyardeni kasam worked to create -- mr. mayorkas worked to create policies to divert those laws and the coequal branch of government and took the oath of the constitution for the first time at 17 on the plane at west point. that constitution means something to me. this is how we get freedom by spreading power out when one executive branch official thinks they can willie nilly do whatever and disregard the other bran and have that's a road to tierney. that's why this means so much to me and why we spent ten plus months investigating impeachment of the cab set secretary. i hope schumer allows the trial. thank you for the opportunity to come and share.

i'll be followed by my colleague mr. mccaul from texas. >> thank you. let me say counter terrific prism state of texas and never seen this law more out of control. chairman of homeland security committee, i've never seen it like this.

ortiz and had a direct cause and effect as to what was happening prior and after. the movie we've seen since then has become a nightmare. those from texas know and we see it and we have millions coming in illegally and it's a human trafficking drug trafficking enterprise they've built now, a criminal enterprise in the united states of america. threatening americans on the street. it's the most egregious of violations as we studied this case. under eight usc12-28 of the immigration nationality act and says the government shall take into custody any alm that committed aggravated felony and

submitting pep pedophiles and drug traffickers and to the lawyers here and we know shall be mandatory and it's not made according to bright lines or categories he said and our personnel should not rely on the fact of conviction or data base search alone. he violated the law and he violated intent of congress.

he violated the founding fathers and talked about to our society. upwards of 300,000 people dead in the united states more than world war ii and vietnam c ombined because of this one m an. you know, people ask me why are you guys doing this? the senate, they're just going to toss it out. well, we have a name for the house of representatives, it's the people's house and we're the voice of the people. when i go home and across this country, the voice of the people is very clear. secure the border and impeach this man, this criminal. we did our our job in the house

and senator schumer did his job and from the senate and required to do by the constitution and i want to close with this, just a story very well and respected supreme court justice in 1833 when they're talking about impeachment says lord admiral neglected to safeguard the seas, that is offense. secretary mayorkas neglected to safeguard the seas but air, land and seas to the great detriment of america. turning over to my colleague and mr. coin. >> i'm the sixth district and like every other member of congress. i want to thank the senators for

today and hear along with everyone and my colleague who is are impeachment managers from the judiciary committee, myself, ms. lee from florida and mr. b iggs from arizona. we're attorneys and we've been prosecutors and defense a ttorneys and judges. congresswoman lee has been a judge. but we know the law. we know the institution. we are used to studying cases, determining the facts, and l aying those facts out not only to juries but the public. in this case, it's clear and we look forward to laying out that case to the senate and the members of the senate i ndividually that alejandro mayorkas violated the law, violated the public trust, violated his oath to the constitution of the united states. ....

>> by hearing those facts, by hearing that evidence and by respecting the american people who sent us to congress. and on behalf of whom we are here presenting these articles to the senate. thank you. with that, i'd like to hand it over to congresswoman lee. >> the american people deserve to hear the facts and the evidence that led us to this day. the american people deserve to hear the things that we in the committee on homeland security heard, the staggering statistics, the deliberate implementation of policies that led to this crisis. today deserve to hear the impunity with which secretary

mayorkas subverted the law, the existing federal law of the united states, and the orders of federal court directing him that his policies were unconstitutional. the american people deserve to hear the same stories that we heard in the house of representatives, the facts and the ed that lead us to the conclusion that this was a necessary decision by the house, that this is so much more than a disagreement about policy. this is the about one branch of government that refuses to acknowledge the will and the authority of the others. both congress where secretary mayorkas came in and time after time after time misled the members of our committee about the true nature, the true significance and what was going on at the southern border, his defiance of the court, his

refusal to accept it as an agency head. he did not have the authority to make the law. most importantly, we must always bear in mind the consequence of these actions, that every day that these policies that have been in place, every day that secretary mayorkas has been in his job, americans are less are safe. the catastrophic consequences to our country by the failure to control our southern border, by the failure to understand who has come to our country, where they are and what their intentions may be is a fundamental breach of the public trust. the house of representatives has done its job. it is time for our colleagues in the senate to do theirs. with that, i recognize my friend and colleague mr. biggs. >> thank you, representative lee, and i thank all of my colleagues from the senate and

the house who are anxious to see a trial take place in the senate as i am. i'll never forget sitting in judiciary committee when secretary mayorkas was testifying on one occasion. we said to him, is the border operationally secure pursuant to the secure fence act of 2006? at first he said, yes. of course, then we put the statute up. then he said, well, you know, nobody can really ever attain operational control of the border under this statute. he said, so we concocted our own, our own rubric, and we peel hike the border is secure. now, mind you at the time we were setting record apprehensions month after a month, record number of encounters, record number of known gotaways and, similarly, large number of unknown

gotaways. in the case of the u.s. very texas, the solicitor general for the biden administration admitted in that particular case that when an executive branch determines it's not going to enforce the laws, that the that the framers intended in that circumstance, you know if an add administration if did something that extreme and said we're just not going to enforce the law at all, then the president would be held to account by the voters, and congress has tools at its disposal as well. that's what the solicitor general for the biden administration. justice kavanaugh queried, what are those tools? if courts. respect going to be able to enforce those congressional mandates, what are the exact tools that congress has to make sure that the laws are enforced in the united states? again, the solicitor general said congress could use the power of the purse. and justice kavanaugh noted, i think your position is instead of judicial review i, congress has to resort to shutting down

the government or impeachment. if some administration comes in and says we're not going to enforce laws or at least not end gores if e toes law -- enforce laws to the degree congress has said the haw should be enforced, i understand your position, but it's forcing congress to take dramatic steps, i think. closed quote. what did the solicitor general say? well, she admitted, well, i think if those dramatic steps would be warranted, it would be in the face of a dramatic abdication of statutory responsibility of the executive, closed quote with. what more overt abdication of statutory respondent have we seen from the biden administration? there's been a lot. but what this particular if secretary the has done, he is responsible for literally hundreds of thousands the of deaths of u.s. citizens. i had in my office just

yesterday two friends who live along the border, and the traffic on their ranch has increased fourfold under this particular administration. now, we could go into high crimes and misdemeanors, we could go into evidence that we have to hoe, but i will just tell you where the evidence leads always. it leads to the fact that this is willful, purposeful and intentional a on the part of secretary mayorkas. this is not some notion of incompetence, this is what he said when he really on said we're not telling you not to come, we're just saying don't come now. which is what he meant when he issued that september 2021 clarifying memo if saying, you know what? it doesn't matter if somebody's

here legally, it doesn't even matter if they're hear under criminal us a a diss. we're not necessarily going to -- we're not necessarily going to do anything about them. it's going to take something far worse. and even then nots necessarily going to do anything. so there is much to be said and much to be done, but i can tell you this, there are a multitude of statutes that require, no, not a suggestion, not a wish, but as justice alito described it, a congressional command that this secretary and his agents detain and in some cases remove. and this secretary has said i'm not going to do it. and that leads me back to the original point. i'm not going to go through all the evidence here for every

case, for every issue that we've got. but we're ready to go, mr. schumer. we're ready to go. but it leads us back to this point. even the biden administration agrees with it. if an executive branch agencies has fully abdicated its statutory requirements, its duties, its responsibilities, there is really only one alternative. and the house did its job. we impeached. and now it's time for the senate to do its job and let that trial take place and let us see if secretary mayorkas should be removed from his office. that's what the founders intended, that's what history has indicated, and that's what is necessary in this case. and with that, i turn it back over to my friend and senator from utah, mr. lee. >> right. let's open up for questions.

>> yeah. >> what steps can you take to try and force a trial the take mace, and are you already negotiating with democrats for the process tomorrow to try and come up with opportunities to prevent options in terms of forcing a trial? >> you know, look, we convene at 1:00 whereupon we'll be sworn in to be the deciders of fact and judges of the law in this case. after that motions will be entertained, and in theory you can have unlimited motions while you're discussing those. us -- historically what's happened with -- is once we've received the impeachment articles if the case hasn't been rendered moot, then the senate negotiates a standing order, an order to goive the intricacies of the trial. this is a little bit akin to what happens when you go to a pretrial conference with the judge. you set out the timing for a pretrial briefing and then the timing for the presentation of

opening statements, cross-expectation of witnesses and so forth -- cross-examination. so that's what we would do. democrats, if they choose to take this unfortunate step tomorrow, moving to table or to dismiss, they're going to have to make the case for. that they can't just make it up. today can't just ignore the fact that we have the power to try all impeachments. anybody want to add to that? >> in terms of what's acceptable as a trial if the senate has -- [inaudible] would that be something that -- [inaudible] or does this need to be the full trial -- >> look, i know a number of us would prefer to have a full trial on the floor, but both are acceptable. there have been times, and senator cruz and i have both drafted proposals to follow one of two different impeachment patterns. one, full trial on the floor, another referral by the senate as a whole to a select committee. the select committee conducts a

trial and then after it completes its work, the matter devolves back to -- >> [inaudible] either one would be acceptable. >> senator, i know last week when we were talking here, several of you, senator johnson, senator lee, talked about the fact that -- by unanimous consent and there were no trials, this would be repercussions for that. sounds like tomorrow we'll know whether or not there's going to be a trial, so does that the still stand? >> absolutely. >> what does that look like? >> what it looks like is that instead of being -- as is necessary for it to operate, i mean, i don't know how many unanimous consent requests are made and granted in a particular if day, but it's a lot. and some days it's more than others. but the place can't function without hem. last night if -- without them. last night i forced an additional procedural vote that we wouldn't have other side had to take in light of what they were doing, and if they take a weasely way out of this, if they

betray our constitutional obligation in the senate, i think we have an obligation on our side to make clear that that's not okay. and that doesn't involve simply looking at this as they run roughshod over the constitution. >> but, hike -- sorry. does that apply to everything that -- [inaudible] if or -- >> everything should be on the table. this is the ridiculous are. i mean, just think about -- we've got families all over this country that have been devastated. and so we should take this very seriously and old the senate accountable for not doing their job. this is so -- [inaudible] you have a trial. and so i think all of us should stand up and say if we're not going to get a trial, then everything's on the table. this is ridiculous. >> yep. >> what would be an acceptable timeline for a trial if, say, there was an agreement to trial just tomorrow, it lasts until the end of day tomorrow, is that too short? is there some sort of timeline you're considering that would be worthwhile. >> i don't think there's any one of us who has identified a sort

of minimum standard by which a trial would have to occur. for me at least, you know, i suppose if they have to, they could fit their presentation into a day or two. a lot of that would probably need to be in consultation with the house prosecutors to figure out what they need, but i would be far more comfortable even if it were a truncated period of a day or two or three or whatever it is, be far more comfortable with that if that means that we ultimately reach a verdict. that is our job, after all. what they're wanting to do is sidestep any verdict, and there's no planet if on which that's acceptable. now, remember, as i anticipated earlier today, first their plan was to table. table mean you're just setting it aside, you're not speaking as to its validity, you're just stetting it aside saying -- setting it aside saying we're not going to touch it. that isn't a thing. after we talked about that for the last week or so, two or

three weeks, apparently they're becoming less enamored with that idea. now they're talking about a motion to dismiss. i don't think they know what that means. you can't just dismiss legal proceedings whether they're civil or criminal. in the civil context, it's the typically under 12b6 of the federal rules of procedure. you have to establish where that the plaintiff has failed to state a claim -- stake a claim upon which relief can be granted. maybe that's what they mean. maybe what they really mean is motion for summary judgment. ing but a motion for summary judgment is taken after you review the discovery materials and you conclude that there are no material disputed fact, there are no general win issues of material facts that need to be resolved by the finder of fact, that ultimately is the role of the trial. they haven't made that case either. so regardless of how long it takes, we need to get to the point of, you know, guilt or

innocence. >> chuck assumer spends a lot of time on the senate floor talking about extremists and threats to democracy. i think he's found the enemy, and the enemy is him. like, literally i don't think we should lose sight of how extreme this really is in our constitutional order. it's never been done. never. 240 years, never been done. and so not only is he a terrible, poor leader, i actually believe if he moves forward with this, he will go down in history as one of the worst united states lawyers ever to serve. and by the way, he may regret this a lot sooner than he thinks. >> let me just add i don't know how you can listen to the case the house managers laid out, the case they made here in this press conference and not understand how compelling a case it is. when you combine the abdication of his responsibility to enforce the laws, to faithfully execute them combined with all the migrant crimes, the horrific crimes, i mean, who let these

people into this country by not faithfully executing the law? isn't that a aiding and abetting those horrific crimes? so, again, the house managers deserve, deserve their day in court to present their case. and, again, the articles are pretty short. i don't think they'd take that much time, but i think second make a very compelling case in a pretty short period of time. but we ought to be able to hear that case, and that's all we're asking for. >> -- discussion in terms of your republican colleagues about perhaps having a few hours set aside tomorrow to debate the merit of having a trial on the senate floor. is that a debate you would want to see happen, a debate about having a trial? >> look, debate other something would be -- over something would be preferable to nothing. it still doesn't substitute for us doing our job. performing our constitutional responsibility under article i, section three, clause 6 which

says the senate shall have the power to try all a impeachments. not just those impeachments that the matter party feels like addressing. not just those impeachments that the majority party finds politically experiod went to address, but all of them. remember, it hasn't been very long, you know, four year years ago since we dealt with the first impeachment trial of donald trump. we received that at the time when the senate republicans were in the majority. we didn't want to have to deal with that. we didn't believe that the impeachment was warranted, and it wasn't. but we held a trial anyway because it was our job to do so. what we're asking here is no less than that. thanks.