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
[–] 6 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 13 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