you accept their argument, it s still not enough, is the only point that i m trying to make. 0k, understood. but point that i m trying to make. 0k, understood. 0k, understood. but i ll tell ou this 0k, understood. but i ll tell you this about 0k, understood. but i ll tell you this about failure - 0k, understood. but i ll tell you this about failure the i 0k, understood. but i ll tell you this about failure the a l you this about failure the a jobs. i can tell you that congress is failing, because any secretary that we have can only do what the law allows them to do. and as far as immigration reforms, something that we ve needed in this country for quite some time, something that the democrats have a number of bills that the republicans failed to bring up they haven t proposed the policies. and building a wall isn t a policy, just fyi. that seems to be something both parties agree on, that there needs to be some sort of reform. if we look at what the white house has done. after tit
republicans say that homeland security secretary mayorkas may not have committed a crime, but he s responsible for gross incompetence for failing to enforce laws at the us border. what s your response to that? my my response is that they can call him incompetent, they can do a lot of things, but impeachment is completely improper under the circumstances. they said it out loud. ifeel as if we need to take my colleagues on the other side of the aisle back to civics one on one and educate them on what it means to impeach someone. they have to commit high crimes and misdemeanours. it s not good enough if you disagree with their policies or feel as if they re failing at their job. it has to be high crimes or misdemeanours, and they know that they don t have that, but they want to push forward anyway. they want to push forward an a . ., y ., ~ they want to push forward an a . ., , ., ~ ., anyway. 0k, do you think that secretary anyway. 0k, do you think that secretary mayorkas anyway. 0k,