0:00

U.S. businesses thrive on Alibaba's online

0:02

marketplace, where sales by American companies

0:04

to Chinese consumers added $53 billion

0:07

to the U.S. economy in 2022. Discover

0:12

more at alibabaparisbusinesses.com.

0:18

From the opinion pages of the Wall

0:20

Street Journal, this is Potomac Watch. The

0:24

New York hush money trial of Donald Trump

0:26

finishes its first week by ceding 12

0:28

jurors and six alternates

0:31

as Trump chafes against the judge's

0:33

gag order. Plus, the

0:35

Senate votes to summarily dismiss impeachment

0:38

articles against Homeland Security Secretary

0:40

Alejandro Mayorkas. Welcome. I'm Kyle

0:42

Peterson with the Wall Street

0:45

Journal. We are joined

0:47

today by my colleagues, editorial board

0:49

member Manet Uchwe Barua and

0:51

columnist Bill McGurn. Judge Juan Mershan

0:53

intends to start hearing evidence on

0:56

Monday in the first

0:58

criminal trial of Donald Trump after spending

1:00

much of this week on

1:02

the task of picking a jury. And

1:04

it must have been a strange experience

1:06

for Donald Trump sitting there in the

1:09

courtroom listening to questions asked of

1:11

these jurors about him, statements

1:14

made by the jurors about him. Here's

1:16

one. This is from the Washington Post

1:18

live blog of events there in the

1:20

courtroom. One potential juror saying, I'm

1:23

born and raised in Brooklyn and New York, and I've kind

1:25

of spent my whole life knowing

1:27

about Donald Trump. Another asked whether he

1:29

had views of Trump saying, not strong

1:31

opinions, but as a want to be

1:33

hockey player, thank you for fixing that

1:35

woman ring that no one in the

1:37

city would fix. Not everything

1:39

positive though, one juror was disqualified,

1:41

struck for cause by the judge

1:44

after Trump's lawyers raised questions about

1:46

social media posts she had made

1:48

in 2016, saying that we

1:50

must protect the rights of people at risk. From

1:53

this racist, sexist narcissist, unquote,

1:55

and it must be an

1:57

odd experience to sit there.

2:00

There's a very famous. Defendants.

2:03

Listening to the views of a random selection

2:05

of New Yorkers have of him. But what

2:07

do we know now about the twelve jurors

2:10

to have been selected to a pass judgment

2:12

on the case that is being brought by

2:14

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg? Well, we know

2:16

that it's a New York Juri and there

2:19

is no getting around that fact. I think

2:21

listeners might remember that when the charges were

2:23

first brought by of and bragged Trump tried

2:25

very hard to get a change of venue

2:28

because he knew that the been had and

2:30

jurisdiction in which has been charged. Is

2:32

going to be place where it's will be

2:35

very hard to find twelve sympathetic or even

2:37

truly neutral people. Obviously New York is known

2:39

as one of the most progressive cities in

2:41

the country. and to read the coverage of

2:44

the identities just and sketches that of the

2:46

recording that's come out from people who are

2:48

in the courtroom during selection they see mostly

2:51

to fit the bill. I mean you can

2:53

correct me if you think I'm being unfair

2:55

kyle. but the rundown of some of those

2:57

personalities you have people describing the places where

3:00

they get news and just about everyone sides.

3:02

To New York Times, The National Public Radio,

3:04

some other very well known left leaning outlets.

3:06

Most of them mention that they do have

3:08

views on Donald Trump and to read between

3:10

the lines, you could kind of see that

3:12

most of them were unfavorable. Not all of

3:14

them. There was one lady who lived in

3:17

Harlem who said that she'd play for Trump

3:19

speaks his mind and for the most part

3:21

they were saying that they have disagreed with

3:23

some of the things that he done during

3:25

his presidency. Set the line at the test

3:27

that was given to them of course was

3:29

not. Do you have any opinion about Donald

3:31

Trump's because. To be fair it would be

3:33

impossible to find jurors anywhere in the country

3:36

who didn't The test was can you be

3:38

impartial despite your views and he would hope

3:40

that for some of them that's true. But

3:42

if you're Trump listening to these responses that

3:44

there are giving through going to find a

3:46

very hard to believe and with good reason

3:48

and so I think a lot of people

3:50

are going to be a looking at the

3:53

charges which as we have pointed out seem

3:55

like a stretch and various regards the thirty

3:57

four town So election fraud distance Trump is

3:59

being charged. It's a seem to be

4:01

very novel legal theory it's But it's

4:03

very possible that because the jurors are

4:06

coming from a standpoint of being skeptical

4:08

trump and perhaps a little bit willing

4:10

to lean in the direction of convicting

4:12

instead of it and of being muddled,

4:15

and if the prosecution's able to make

4:17

a decent case, we might have a

4:19

foregone conclusion. Terms of how this is

4:21

actually heard and that's really hard to

4:24

get around. It is an anonymous juri,

4:26

so we have sketches of. If

4:28

these twelve people and their media

4:30

consumption habits and so forth, their

4:32

professions where they live, but not

4:35

much more than that. we don't

4:37

have names. There was a juror

4:39

juror number two who was selected

4:41

earlier this week and the media

4:43

had described her as and in

4:45

college. he nurse. At. Memorial

4:47

Sloan Kettering. Living on

4:49

the Upper East Side with her fiance

4:51

and who likes take your dog to

4:54

the park and the next day she

4:56

came in and said that family friends,

4:58

colleagues had more or less guessed that

5:00

it was her and identified her from

5:02

those details and began pushing things to

5:05

her phone. And so she was that

5:07

excuse. The. Judge subsequently ass the

5:09

reporters in the room to be

5:11

more circumspect about the way they

5:13

described the jurors to not give

5:15

his physical attributes of them, which

5:18

he said serve no purpose at

5:20

all, and he said that he

5:22

would strike from the record any

5:24

specific names of their present or

5:26

past employers, even though he acknowledged

5:28

that the lawyers for both sides

5:30

might need that information to be

5:33

discussed inside the courtroom as they're

5:35

making decisions about how to use

5:37

their strikes. of jurors and so

5:39

forth but bill there's been some discussion

5:41

of the fact that as been a

5:44

says this is a new york jury

5:46

pool and so he this twelve people

5:48

we have to people who are lawyers

5:51

one of them is described as a

5:53

civil litigator one of them is described

5:55

as a corporate lawyer and some speculation

5:57

about whether that might be saved to

6:01

Donald Trump here because remember the

6:03

case that is being prosecuted is

6:05

this falsification of

6:08

business records, felonies. And

6:11

in order to prove that, the prosecution

6:13

has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt,

6:15

not only that Donald Trump falsified these

6:17

business records, but that he did so

6:19

with the intent to commit or conceal

6:22

a second crime, which might be tax

6:25

fraud or which might be a campaign

6:27

finance violation. Bill, what do you make

6:29

of the idea that having

6:31

two lawyers on this jury might suggest that

6:34

there are at least two people in that

6:36

room who are really dialed into this fact

6:38

that that second crime

6:40

has to be proved beyond a

6:42

reasonable doubt? I don't know that

6:44

lawyers are any better in these

6:47

questions than ordinary people. Look, we've

6:49

discussed before, I think this is

6:51

a very flimsy case with

6:53

a lot of dubious legal

6:55

theories behind it, taking a

6:57

misdemeanor and strapping it

7:00

to another crime to get a

7:02

felony, 34 felonies. So

7:05

I think there's a lot of openings

7:07

for appeals later. I don't know how

7:09

it's going to be settled. I do

7:11

think Trump's had disadvantage. A Manhattan jury,

7:14

most of the people voted against what

7:17

was it, 80 something percent for Joe

7:19

Biden, but he has one

7:21

advantage in that he really doesn't

7:23

have to win. He doesn't

7:25

need a not guilty verdict. He needs

7:28

just one person not to go along

7:30

with the guilty verdict. So

7:33

the prosecution needs a unified jury

7:35

and Trump just needs one person

7:37

to have doubts to have it

7:39

in. Now, again, they could retry

7:42

him, but I think that's highly

7:44

unlikely given these kind of charges.

7:47

They may even up a little bit. Hang tight.

7:49

We'll be right back in a moment. US

8:00

economy in 2022. Discover

8:03

more at alibabapowersbusinesses.com.

8:11

Welcome back. Another question that has gotten

8:13

some attention this week is the gag

8:15

order issued on the defendant Trump by

8:18

the judge. Let's listen to a clip

8:20

of Donald Trump outside the courtroom on

8:22

Friday, making the argument that this gag

8:25

order should be lifted when the

8:27

judge has a hearing on it next week. The

8:57

gag order issued by Judge

8:59

Mershon, to my eye, is

9:01

mostly a pretty narrow order.

9:03

He cited an obligation to

9:05

prevent outside influences, including extrajudicial

9:07

speech, from disturbing the integrity

9:10

of the trial. And so the

9:12

order says that Trump is not

9:14

supposed to, while the trial is

9:16

going on, make statements about probable

9:18

witnesses in the case, court staff,

9:21

and staff, as well as their families, and

9:24

jurors, and prospective jurors. And

9:27

the argument for this

9:29

kind of order in a proceeding like this

9:32

is to prevent statements

9:34

that might be arguably

9:36

intimidating to witnesses, jurors,

9:38

people who are anonymous.

9:40

In one of the federal cases, for example, one

9:43

of the witnesses might be an IT

9:45

staffer at Mar-a-Lago, the club

9:47

in and that

9:49

person is not famous. That person does

9:51

not have a big microphone or platform

9:53

of their own. And the same is

9:56

true, I think, of these jurors and

9:58

potential jurors. And as the excuse, of

10:00

juror number two earlier this week

10:03

shows asking these people to dive

10:05

into this case for

10:07

the good of justice in order to

10:09

guarantee that every defendant has the right

10:11

to a trial by jury of their

10:13

peers, which is guaranteed in the Constitution.

10:15

That's an easier list if those people

10:18

who are anonymous and again don't have

10:20

their own platforms and their own microphones,

10:22

if those people think they are protected

10:24

from the Trump tweet or the Trump's

10:26

truth social post as it may be

10:28

these days. All right. I think the

10:30

question of the gag order is

10:32

completely fascinating and fraught issue at

10:34

the heart of this case. On

10:36

the one hand, gag orders obviously

10:38

are run of the mill in

10:40

high stakes trials to protect witnesses

10:42

from intimidation. They want to know

10:44

that they'll be able to appear

10:46

without being attacked or publicly slandered.

10:49

And that's even more important in

10:51

this case because the defendant is

10:53

someone who has massive national and

10:55

international reach and incredible loyalty among

10:58

his followers. And so if Trump

11:00

were to attack one of the anonymous

11:02

witnesses, he could really completely change their

11:04

lives, their reputations, and maybe even bring

11:06

a threat upon them. And so, as

11:08

you said, Judge Murchin issued this gag

11:10

order, which was circumspect

11:12

in some ways and was meant to protect

11:14

witnesses from exactly that, the idea that Trump

11:17

could name them publicly and they would be

11:19

perhaps intimidated from appearing in the first place

11:21

or if they did would face reputational damage.

11:23

But if we back up to the very

11:26

beginning of the trial, as listeners will remember,

11:28

there is another issue which cuts in the

11:30

other direction, which is of course the fact

11:32

that Trump is a presidential candidate, as he

11:35

was alluding to in that clip. And he

11:37

has to be able to defend himself, not

11:39

just in the courtroom, but publicly. And

11:41

if he thinks that there are witnesses who are

11:44

biased, of course he's going to want to be

11:46

able to make that case publicly. And the same

11:48

goes for Judge Murchin and others. He wants to

11:50

be able to say and has a lot of

11:52

reason to say that this is a

11:55

biased proceeding, that the charges should never have

11:57

been brought, and that's something that American voters

11:59

need to hear. perspective on to be

12:01

able to make the choice that they really

12:03

want to make in November. And so trying

12:05

to get that balance right is a

12:07

very difficult one. I think as you

12:09

were implying, one of the standards that

12:11

should be used to differentiate between what

12:13

Trump is able to say and what

12:16

he isn't is who the target of

12:18

his attacks is. Judge Merchant

12:20

himself, of course, is a public figure. Even

12:22

if he's not famous, he is clothed in

12:24

the official power of the government and has

12:26

willingly stepped into that role as his profession.

12:29

So Trump wants to attack him. He

12:31

should be able to take that. And I think

12:33

the same goes for Michael Cohen, of course,

12:35

who has become a household name over the

12:37

course of the past several years of being in

12:39

Trump's orbit and who has been willing to

12:41

go on television and attack Trump and call

12:43

him a liar himself. He's obviously

12:46

going to be a key witness for Alvin

12:48

Bragg in the prosecution and Trump wants to

12:50

discredit him. And it seems very

12:52

reasonable to think that Trump should be able

12:54

to do that. If he's going to be

12:56

attacked publicly, he should be able to defend

12:58

himself publicly. But it's very difficult from the

13:00

perspective of Judge Merchant to create a

13:02

gag order that is able to narrowly

13:05

differentiate among these different types

13:07

of people. I don't know

13:10

what ability, if any, he has to amend

13:12

the order he's already given or if he

13:14

would be willing to do that. But it

13:16

does seem as if Trump has the slight

13:18

edge in this argument saying that he's being

13:20

constrained a little bit too tightly as currently

13:22

stand. A couple of good points from an

13:24

either that I would underline. One is that

13:26

the gag order issued by the judge does

13:29

not protect the judge himself and

13:31

also does not protect the district attorney,

13:33

Alvin Bragg. And I think

13:35

I agree appropriately so because those are two

13:37

people who have public offices

13:39

and are presiding over

13:42

this trial or in the DA's case,

13:44

bringing these charges. And nothing in this

13:46

gag order prevents Donald Trump from going

13:49

online, going on truth social, and

13:51

lambasting the judge and lambasting the district

13:54

attorney. On the point about Michael Cohen,

13:56

I think that's an interesting one because

13:58

he is on the potential. potential witness

14:00

list here and so would be protected from

14:02

criticism under the terms of the order as

14:05

I read it right now. But

14:07

Michael Cohen is a public figure in his own right

14:09

and has been on something of a

14:12

media tour lately. Let's listen to him

14:14

on MSNBC this past weekend. Every time

14:16

Donald opens his mouth, you know that

14:18

something non-truthful is coming out of it.

14:21

We also know that he's not a

14:23

good defendant. He's not a good witness.

14:26

We watched that with the E. Jean

14:28

Carroll case when he couldn't even identify

14:30

E. Jean Carroll and

14:32

confused her with Marla Maples.

14:35

He is not a good witness.

14:37

He's not going to take the

14:39

stand. In fact, I hope that

14:41

I'm wrong because I think that

14:44

would be absolutely classic for America

14:46

to be able to see Donald

14:48

Trump on the witness stand trying

14:50

to defend himself in a case

14:52

that's indefensible. Bill, one of

14:54

the things that the prosecution is now

14:56

citing as it asks for the

14:58

judge to hold Trump in contempt for violating

15:01

the gag order are truth

15:03

social posts attacking Michael Cohen. Trump

15:06

called Michael Cohen a disgraced attorney

15:09

and a sleazebag. And

15:11

it seems to me that those are probably

15:13

in violation of the terms of the gag

15:15

order. On the other hand, it's an odd

15:18

sort of asymmetry if the witness

15:20

can go on national television and call

15:22

the defendant a liar and the defendant

15:24

is not allowed to respond. Yeah, I

15:26

mean, that's you just made Donald Trump's

15:28

argument. This is the problem with the

15:31

order. Gag orders are not unusual. Usually

15:34

they apply to both sides. But

15:36

as we see with this case, everything

15:38

is going to be contested and have

15:40

wrinkles we didn't know about. We have

15:43

to remember Donald Trump thinks rightly, I

15:45

think these are charges that never should

15:47

have been brought. It's an unfair trial.

15:49

And I think he's trying to make

15:51

that case to voters because he is

15:53

running for president. So his

15:55

primary thing is he's kind of saying,

15:58

I'm not going to win the court. So I'm

16:00

going to make my case outside.

16:03

And the problem is that's kind of a

16:05

trap for the judge and

16:07

the prosecutors because the more they

16:09

punish him, the stronger seems this

16:12

case that he's being punished

16:14

in a unique way. So

16:16

I think we're going to see a lot

16:19

more of this before the trial ends. I

16:21

think you're right about Michael Cohen, the problem

16:23

in the distinct double standard that he can

16:25

talk, he can go on TV, in fact,

16:28

and Trump can. Trump's going

16:30

to exploit all those things, which may

16:32

not help him in court, may hurt

16:35

him in court, but it may help

16:37

him politically. But that dynamic, that political

16:39

dynamic is worth keeping in mind for

16:41

the judge, potentially Monet, because Donald

16:44

Trump may want to be sanctioned here. Politically

16:46

there might be nothing better for him

16:49

than getting some enormous fine for breaking

16:51

these gag orders or getting sent to

16:53

jail for some period of hours

16:55

or a day or two. I

16:58

think that the judge probably has

17:00

an instinct to vindicate the authority

17:02

that he has to maintain decorum

17:05

over the proceeding that's happening in his

17:07

courtroom. But there is an element of

17:09

not giving Donald Trump in

17:11

this case, maybe what he actually

17:14

wants. I do

17:16

think that the decision in front of

17:18

Judge Murchin about how to tailor the

17:20

gag order has more to do with

17:22

what's right and what's wrong. He should

17:24

seek to protect witnesses from

17:27

unfair attack and he should

17:29

seek to make sure that Donald Trump's

17:32

right to speak freely to his followers

17:34

is unencumbered and that he can still

17:36

make his case as a presidential candidate.

17:39

But frankly, it probably won't

17:41

be decisive in what Trump chooses to

17:43

do in the sense that if he decides

17:45

that he has more to gain politically by

17:48

making attacks, he's going to go ahead and

17:50

do that and probably think that the boost

17:52

he'll get from the support of his followers

17:54

is worth whatever penalty he'll have to face,

17:56

be it a fine or perhaps even the

17:59

possibility of a a jail sentence,

18:01

but I do think that it's possible

18:03

that it's already helping him, that he's

18:05

able to mention the gag order as

18:07

one more piece of evidence that this

18:09

case is being brought unfairly to push

18:12

him to the sidelines politically. That

18:14

the charges are completely trumped up, that

18:16

Joe Biden leaned on Alvin Bragg to

18:19

bring them. And again, there

18:21

are a lot of people who don't take much convincing

18:23

to believe that that's the case, given the number

18:25

of charges that Trump faces, the fact that just

18:27

about all of them were based at least in

18:30

part on novel legal theories, the fact

18:32

that this is unprecedented to have a

18:34

running candidate facing these types of charges

18:36

in the first place. And

18:38

so I think that he is going to

18:40

find a way to turn this to his

18:42

advantage, especially among his most fervent followers. And

18:44

he seems to already be doing that. Hang

18:46

tight, we'll be right back after one more

18:48

break. Max Levchin

18:50

was one of the original co-founders of PayPal,

18:52

and now he's leading one of the biggest

18:55

players in the Buy Now, Pay Later business.

18:58

And as CEO of a firm, he's going head to

19:00

head with the credit card company. Credit,

19:02

generally speaking, is good. America runs

19:04

on credit. I think we let ourselves illustrate

19:07

when we decided that credit cards is

19:09

the optimal way of borrowing money. Here

19:12

an in-depth version of our conversation

19:14

with Max Levchin for WSJ's take

19:16

on the week, plus other exclusive

19:18

content on WSJ special

19:20

access, only for WSJ

19:22

subscribers on Spotify and Apple Podcasts.

19:27

Don't forget you can reach the latest

19:30

episode of Potomac Watch anytime. Just

19:32

ask your smart speaker, play the Opinion

19:34

Potomac Watch Podcast. From

19:39

the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal,

19:41

this is Potomac Watch. Welcome

19:45

back. Let's turn to a

19:47

piece of news in Congress this

19:49

week. Earlier this year, the House

19:51

of Representatives passed two articles of

19:53

impeachment against Homeland Security

19:55

Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, Article I for

19:58

Willful, and the House of Representatives. and

20:00

systemic refusal to comply with

20:02

the law, and Article

20:04

2 for breach of public

20:06

trust. Those articles were then

20:09

delivered over to the Senate where

20:11

impeachment articles are tried. And

20:13

what the Senate decided to do was to

20:15

dispose of them summarily. One of

20:18

the votes was 5148, with

20:20

Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski voting

20:23

present, and the other one was 5149. The

20:27

argument from the Democratic leader in the

20:30

Senate, Chuck Schumer, was that these articles

20:32

did not meet the constitutional standard of

20:35

high crimes and misdemeanors. Now

20:37

let's listen to a piece of the House

20:40

Speaker Mike Johnson and his disappointment at the

20:42

Senate's move. There should have been a full

20:44

trial. The American people should have

20:46

been able to see the evidence and evaluate

20:48

for themselves, what I think they know already

20:51

intuitively, and that is that Secretary Mayorkas had

20:54

a fantastical breach of duty.

20:56

I mean, he breached his

20:58

constitutional responsibility. He's openly defied

21:01

the federal law on immigration and the will of

21:03

Congress. In my view, he

21:05

has lied on multiple occasions to Congress

21:07

under oath, and I think he's done it to me when I

21:09

used to serve on the House Judiciary Committee. And

21:12

my view, I believe, my evaluation

21:15

is he's probably the least effective,

21:17

and I think most dangerous in terms of

21:19

his policy implementations of any

21:22

cabinet secretary in the history of the United States.

21:24

What are you making this as a

21:26

political end to the impeachment push for

21:28

Secretary Mayorkas? Well, we knew

21:30

what was coming wasn't going to result in

21:32

a guilty finding. It's lamentable.

21:35

I actually think you can make

21:37

a case for impeachment for dereliction

21:39

of duty. I do think you

21:41

can make that case. I think

21:43

that prudence would say it was

21:46

not wise to bring that in

21:48

the circumstances, meaning a Democratic

21:50

Senate that would never convict. And

21:53

also all the other investigations, the

21:55

impeachment for the president, all the

21:58

other things going on. a

22:00

lot of freight to put on Congress

22:02

at this time. And I think the

22:04

Republicans probably would have been better off

22:06

interviewing and printing their findings than leaving

22:09

it to the people to decide. The

22:11

Republicans are winning on the immigration issue.

22:13

I don't know that

22:15

impeaching Mayorkas, like finding them

22:17

guilty, would make much difference

22:20

to that. And to my

22:22

eye, it looks like another exercise in

22:24

defining down the constitutional power of impeachment.

22:26

And part of it is the

22:28

political case that Bill just made,

22:30

that if you have divided government

22:32

and you have a Senate that

22:35

is no way, no how going to

22:37

convict Alejandro Mayorkas, then what are you

22:39

doing sending an article of impeachment over

22:41

there? The other piece of it from

22:43

the House's perspective, though, is

22:45

just that Alejandro Mayorkas, the Secretary

22:48

of Homeland Security, what he's doing

22:50

is he's executing the policies of

22:53

President Biden. And I agree that

22:55

President Biden's border policies have been

22:57

ineffectual and have been damaging to

22:59

the country. But that's on President

23:02

Biden. That is not on his

23:04

Homeland Security secretary. And the

23:06

Republicans need to make that case

23:08

in the election that is coming

23:10

here in a matter of months

23:12

to replace President Biden. And on

23:14

the Senate side, Monet, though, it

23:16

is a fascinating precedent now of

23:18

taking an impeachment article that has been passed by

23:21

the House and doing basically nothing

23:23

with it. And it seems to me that

23:25

if that's where impeachment is going, then the

23:27

next time that Democrats move an impeachment article,

23:30

Republicans, if they control the Senate, are just

23:32

going to do the same thing. Right. I

23:34

think I agree with you on both

23:36

counts. Yes, the Senate has generally

23:39

been understood to have the responsibility to

23:41

take up impeachment charges, but also that

23:43

it probably was a stretch on the

23:45

part of the House to impeach Mayorkas

23:47

on the charges that they brought against

23:49

him. If you look at Article

23:51

one of the Constitution, it does say that

23:53

the Senate shall have the sole power to

23:56

try impeachment. It doesn't say that they must

23:58

do that. But historically, when presented with

24:00

charges, they have always taken them up and

24:02

rendered a verdict, much in the way that

24:04

a jury considers charges that come

24:06

out of a grand jury indictment. They believe

24:09

that they have a responsibility to sit and

24:11

they also have the ability to structure the nature

24:14

of the trial. And so if they wanted to

24:16

do it in a short, inderexpedited version, because they

24:18

believe that that's all these charges merited, they could

24:20

have done that. But as you

24:23

and Bill were saying, they did take

24:25

a fairly unprecedented step in dismissing them

24:27

without actually weighing evidence. And that hurts

24:29

them politically because it suggests that

24:31

they aren't taking seriously charges

24:34

that were made against Mayorkas and the Biden

24:36

administration's handling of the border. And it also

24:38

is something that is going to create a

24:41

foundation for the same thing to happen again,

24:43

perhaps when more serious charges are brought against

24:45

a sitting officer of the United States. And

24:48

so we could be descending into a

24:50

situation in which houses are very quick to

24:52

impeach, but when the Senate is controlled by

24:54

the opposite party, that doesn't actually get taken

24:57

up and which could be

24:59

a dangerous situation. The issue will be

25:01

handled eventually in November, but Republicans are

25:03

going to keep making their case that

25:05

Biden and Mayorkas mishandled the border and

25:07

are going to be running on that

25:09

and making the case before voters as

25:11

they ought to. I think

25:13

that the whole impeachment process was really

25:15

just a move to aid that. They

25:17

didn't think it was enough to be

25:19

repeatedly saying that Biden has

25:21

led to the biggest influx of illegal immigration

25:24

in this country's history, but wanted to show

25:26

that they had taken action. And impeachment is

25:28

something that they felt that they could reach

25:30

for in order to get that message across to

25:32

their supporters. So I think it was a stretch

25:34

on the part of the House Republicans to bring

25:36

it. But ultimately, this was all

25:38

about politics to begin with. And the better

25:41

move for them is going to be continuing

25:43

to show the worst examples of

25:45

what exactly the Biden administration has done and

25:47

put it before voters so that they can

25:50

make their choice in November and potentially

25:52

lead to an actual change in policy.

25:54

Thank you, Manay and Bill. Thank you

25:57

all for listening. You can email us

25:59

at pwpodcastatwsj.com. If you

26:01

like the show, please hit that subscribe button,

26:03

and we'll be back next week with another

26:05

edition of Potomac Watch. U.S.

26:07

businesses thrive on Alibaba's online marketplace,

26:10

where sales by American companies to

26:12

Chinese consumers added $53 billion

26:15

to the U.S. economy in 2022. Discover

26:19

more at alibabaparisbusinesses.com.