Washington (United States) (AFP) – A Republican lawmaker moved Monday to impeach US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth over the war in Iran, setting up a potentially explosive vote in Congress days after President Donald Trump's party suffered a crushing midterm defeat.

Kentucky congressman Thomas Massie introduced eight articles of impeachment accusing Hegseth of illegally waging war without congressional authorization and abusing his powers as Pentagon chief.

The Republican-controlled House could vote as early as Wednesday, with some lawmakers from Trump's party signaling they might join Democrats in backing the charges.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio came to Hegseth's defense Monday while visiting Paris.

"I think it's unfair. Look, I think Pete's done a good job, I really do," Rubio told reporters, praising his colleague as hardworking and "incredibly smart."

Rubio credited Hegseth with helping build counter-cartel partnerships in the Americas, severely weakening Iran's military and overseeing the operation to capture Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro.

Impeachment would be a humiliating blow for the Trump administration, but would not automatically remove Hegseth. Conviction requires a two-thirds majority in the Senate -- a much higher hurdle, even after Democrats take control in January.

The move has gathered momentum since Tuesday's midterms, when Democrats swept both chambers amid voter anger over the Iran war and soaring fuel prices.

Republicans retain control until the new Congress takes office on January 3, but their defeat has fueled recriminations. Defeated Republicans could skip votes, making impeachment easier to pass.

...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 27 points 20 hours ago (21 children)

Very interesting that they'd try to start this before the new Dems even take office. Rats and sinking ships indeed.

Or is this a roundabout way to protect Kegsbreath, by first starting an intentionally flawed impeachment proceeding in order to poison any later attempt?

  • source
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 19 hours ago (17 children)

    Or Massie is motivated by revenge/principal/spite and wants to start the fire that burns it all down before he’s done.

    Doesn’t really matter, this is the appropriate action and needs to happen.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 19 hours ago (16 children)

    Yeah but let's shut the fuck up until January. Don't start threatening investigations until after they're sworn in, so they don't try to block them from being sworn in. Then let it rip.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 19 hours ago (14 children)

    Couple things:

    1. The articles of impeachment were introduced by Thomas Massie, a Republican. This was not initiated by the Democrat party.
    2. The idea that they don’t know investigations are coming is laughable.
    3. They can’t block them, this is a whole new Congresss.
    4. Why should the people have to wait? They’re already overdue for justice.
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 18 hours ago (13 children)

    I mean, I don't disagree. I want blood. But I also want to be assured that blood will happen, and I can wait a few months. And by blood I mean figuratively. Justice should have been swift after Biden won, but once again corporate Democrats dragged their feet trying to do it in a friendly way. I'm not saying we do that again. Way too many people's lives were upended because the Democrats pussyfooted around for far too long.

    This time, we go after everything hard and fast. The heritage foundation, trump admin, the media takeover, AI, surveillance, foreign interference. But make the plan, do it right and make sure it's air tight. Get real justice, no slaps on the wrist. And after that, make sure it can never happen again.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 18 hours ago (11 children)

    This time, we go after everything hard and fast.

    Not going to happen. You don’t unwind 2+ years of malfeasance and corruption quickly. Certainly not when one of the involved parties is still a sitting US president.

    That’s why they need to get started as quickly as possible. The best time for these actions was 8 months ago, the second best time is now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 16 hours ago (3 children)

    Oh totally. Get the planning started. Look into things that need more looking into. But it's only 2 months away. You can't just bang out the paperwork super fast. Start on that quietly now. Do it, make sure your t's are crossed, your i's dotted. Make the papers theoretical fort knox's. That should allow a fuck ton of information to come fast during investigations. You've already got your ducks in a row. And you don't allow the opposition the time to coordinate.

    If you announce investigations about specific things 2 months out, you give them time to anticipate the direction they're going. For instance you can say you're investigating kushner for corruption. He and his connections can start building defenses for it. But if you don't play your cards, they know they'll be investigated for something, and they'll assume corruption. And they'll plan for that. But instead, you could go for bribery while their defense has nothing for it. Throw in RICO and you start PAC-MANing up large bits of info that they didn't expect to need to cover.

    That's just a loose example, and I am obviously not a lawyer, but politicking isn't exactly lawyering either. It's a strategy game. Strategy however, is something I am very familiar with. You never, ever let the opposition learn your strategy. Keep the enemy on their toes. Hegseth shows up thinking he's defending himself about "drug boats" and nail him with civil rights questions about firing top generals. When someone's on their back foot they give up a lot more information.

    All I'm saying is don't play the cards without a plan.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 hours ago

    Thomas Massie, a Republican whose term expires in 2 months filed the articles of impeachment.

    Articles of Impeachment are not a criminal trial, they are for removal from office.

    Criminal trials likely won’t start until the next Congress because the Republicans still hold the majority through the end of the year and the Dems need the majority to hold the DoJ accountable and to appoint special prosecution.

    This administrations crimes were committed publicly. They are not going to be able to hide from them or obscure them. They will work to delay, deny and obstruct.

    This will not be fast, it will not be some “gotcha” prosecution like you seem to expect. This will drag on and become tedious and boring at times.

    Your expectation of swift and righteous justice is misplaced and you’re setting yourself up for disappointment

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 14 hours ago* (6 children)

    You don’t unwind 2+ years of malfeasance and corruption quickly.

    You don't need to.

    You just need one simple and solid charge that will stick for an impeachment. Impeach the fuckers, and then worry about unraveling the rat's nest of corruption after they're out of office. When it comes to criminal cases later, then is the time for going slowly and methodically and leaving no stone unturned. But for now, we need swift, decisive action based on the most important and obvious points.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 hours ago (5 children)

    Do you know how long the impeachment process takes?

    Trump was impeached twice with the first taking ~6 months and the second ~1 year and that was for one person. Those impeachments also failed at the removal step.

    This will not be a quick process. You are deluding yourself if you think otherwise.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 hours ago (4 children)

    This could be a quick process, if they had the votes for it, the support of House/Senate leadership, and they tried to.

    There's nothing in the constitution or law that forces them to spend a long time on investigations, scheduling, and votes. If they really wanted to, they could have the House vote on it one day, the Senate vote on it the next day, and have the criminal out on the 3rd day.

    Yes, it won't at all happen that fast. Mainly because they'll (correctly or not) figure that they need time to build and airtight, convincing case in order to get enough Republicans on board. But, really, everyone in Congress -- Republicans included -- already know that this administration broke many laws at many points. And they don't have to prove it like in court -- all it takes is a vote ... and votes can be done quickly when they're motivated to do so.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 hours ago (3 children)

    What you are saying is factually incorrect. It would be worthwhile for you to understand what the full impeachment process is.

    The impeachment itself can happen quickly but then there is an impeachment trial. If the result of the trial is a guilty verdict then the official is removed.

    Maybe it could be done in weeks instead of months but we all know it won’t be weeks.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 hour ago (2 children)

    I don't see why the trial needs to take more than one day.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 47 minutes ago (1 child)

    Clearly. Just like you don’t understand the impeachment process.

    Trump’s second impeachment trial with one article of impeachment took 5 days.

    Something tells me one day won’t be enough for things like witness testimony and to subpoena and review relevant documents.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

    so they don’t try to block them from being sworn in

    They'll do that regardless.

    But, fun fact, it doesn't matter if the new batch of congresscritters is sworn in or not -- the ones who were voted out stop being congressmen on January 3rd, whether they have a replacement sworn in or not. No matter if their replacements get sworn in or not, they have to go. (Although I'm unclear on the subject of successful incumbents. They certainly don't have to leave, since they won reelection ... but do they need to be sworn in again after every election, or do they just keep going on like before?)

    But if they try to play too many games with the 'swearing in' nonesense, the incoming congressmen can play hardball right back. There's no constitutional requirement for being sworn in, not even a rule of Senate/House procedure. It's just traditional that new congressmen get sworn in before participating. But if they're playing games with not letting the new ones get sworn in, they could also just show up and start participating/voting anyway. Maybe swear themselves in first, and dare the rest to stop them. The current batch of Republicans have violated plenty of norms and traditions already, and if they try to use this norm/tradition as a stumbling block, then let's violate this one too.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

    Nah, Massie tried this before the election, but Johnson dismissed the house early to avoid it. He's just picking up right where he left off. Also, Massie is leaving Congress, so is trying to get his name out there one last time

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 18 hours ago (1 child)

    I see it more as he doesn’t have anything to lose by starting impeachment. He got voted out and now he can be free with his votes and power without kowtowing to anyone.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment