The Senate wants to quickly dismiss Mayorka's impeachment charge in a speedy trial

Senate leaders plan to take swift action this month to reject the articles of impeachment against Alejandro N. Mayorkas, the secretary of Homeland Security. They are setting up a speedy trial in hopes of preventing House Republicans from turning the chamber into a political spectacle.

Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and majority leader, has not yet determined exactly how to shorten the proceedings, according to people familiar with the ongoing discussions who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe plans still in development goods. . But he is aiming for quick action, starting on February 28, the day the House is expected to introduce the indictment. That could be over in a few days.

Mr. Schumer still has nearly two weeks before House managers plan to formally hand senators the articles of impeachment against Mr. Mayorkas, which the House narrowly approved on Tuesday in a second attempt after being defeated the week before. They accuse the secretary of refusing to enforce immigration laws and violating public trust in the state of the U.S. border with Mexico, effectively declaring President Biden's immigration policies a constitutional crime.

Senate leaders are betting that there is enough Democratic anger and Republican exasperation over the precedent-breaking nature of the indictment — and over the handling of Mr. Mayorkas' impeachment — to quickly exonerate him, either by bringing the indictment into to reject it entirely, either by going to the US. end the procedure early.

And they have no doubt that they would have the votes to acquit him. Conviction would require a two-thirds majority, meaning at least 18 senators on the Democratic side would have to join Republicans in finding Mr. Mayorkas guilty.

“These allegations are a total sham – truly shameful – and deserve absolutely no dignity,” said Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut and member of the Judiciary Committee. “They are purely a political stunt by the far-right fringe of the MAGA movement and, in my opinion, should be summarily rejected.”

The Constitution requires the Senate to consider impeachment charges approved by the House, meaning some sort of trial, in which senators are sworn in as jurors, is inevitable once the articles are introduced. But from there, there are many options for moving forward.

Republicans in the House of Representatives have called for a full trial.

“If they ignore this and just throw it in the trash without taking it as seriously as the American people do, then there will be accountability and consequences,” Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana, the majority leader, said of the Senate on Wednesday morning. . “They have to do their job.”

The Senate has held a handful of high-profile impeachment trials, most recently the 2020 and 2021 trials of former President Donald J. Trump, both of which ended in his acquittal. The only other Cabinet secretary to be impeached, William Belknap, who resigned before the House approved the charges against him in 1876, was also acquitted.

But a full trial is not a requirement, and Senate leaders can set their own rules for conducting the proceedings. In most modern impeachment proceedings, this included the opportunity for each senator to dismiss the charge, and a simple majority threshold to do so.

“There is substantial precedent for considering motions to dismiss at various stages of impeachment proceedings,” said Joshua Matz, a constitutional lawyer and impeachment expert who worked on the House teams that impeached Mr. Trump.

During former President Bill Clinton's impeachment trial in 1999, Senator Robert C. Byrd filed such a motion immediately after prosecutors and defense presented their evidence. It was defeated largely along party lines, and the trial lasted a total of about five weeks before Clinton was acquitted.

During Mr. Trump's second trial, Senator Rand Paul, the Republican of Kentucky, tried to halt the proceedings with an objection, arguing that it was unconstitutional to try a former president. That, too, failed when five Republicans crossed party lines to join Democrats in voting to allow the trial to proceed.

In Mr. Mayorkas' case, such a motion would almost certainly pass, as Democrats will most likely stick together to push it through.

Senate Democrats are outraged by Mr. Mayorkas' impeachment, and even some Republicans were cool to the idea, hesitant to jump into a drawn-out political spectacle that has no chance of succeeding. Some share the concerns of former Homeland Security secretaries and many constitutional law experts — including conservatives — who have said the charges do not rise to the level of a serious crime or misdemeanor, the constitutional standard for a conviction.

They are especially reluctant to spend time on the issue at a time when Congress will face several more government shutdown deadlines, with federal funding for some agencies set to expire on March 1 and others on March 8 .

Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, told reporters last week that he wanted to “dismiss” the charges against Mr. Mayorkas “as quickly as possible” and that he believed there would be enough support in the House to dismiss them early.

Some Republicans have described the exercise as futile.

“It will be dead on arrival if it comes across,” Senator James Lankford, Republican of Oklahoma, said last week of the charges, adding that getting rid of Mr. Mayorkas would not solve the problems at the border.

“It will still be the same policy even if Mayorkas leaves,” Mr. Lankford said. “We will achieve the same result because we have the same president driving policy.”

Should the Senate succeed in dismissing the charges against Mr. Mayorkas, it would spare Republicans a potentially awkward vote in which some would have to choose between a guilty verdict on charges they say are missing and a not-guilty vote that would Biden administration official. , angering their right-wing base.

For Mr. Mayorkas, there would be no practical difference between an acquittal and the dismissal of the charges.

“If you are criminally charged and the court dismisses the charge on the grounds that the charge you were charged with failed in law, then you are acquitted,” Mr. Matz said.