Rep. Thomas Massie files resolution to impeach Pete Hegseth

[0:00] under which the President may introduce United States Armed Forces into [0:05] hostilities absent congressional authorization, the 93rd Congress of the [0:10] United States of America enacted into law House Joint Resolution 542, the War [0:16] Powers Resolution of 1973, Public Law 93-148, by overriding the veto of [0:23] President Richard Nixon. Secretary Hegseth carried out unlawful orders and [0:28] continues to do so in contravention of Section 5C of the War Powers Resolution [0:33] of 1973, Section 1544C of Title 50, United States Code. Section 5C of the [0:42] War Powers Resolution of 1973 provides that, at any time that United States Armed [0:49] Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its [0:54] possessions and territories, without a declaration of war or specific [0:59] statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the [1:05] Congress so directs by concurrent resolution. With respect to the United [1:11] States Armed Forces being engaged in hostilities in the Islamic Republic of [1:15] Iran pursuant to Section 5C, the House of Representatives and the Senate agreed by [1:21] the yeas and nays to a concurrent resolution directing the President to [1:25] remove United States Armed Forces from unauthorized hostilities in Iran, House [1:30] concurrent resolution 86 of the 119th Congress. The House agreed to this [1:36] concurrent resolution on June 3rd, 2026, and the Senate agreed to it on June 23rd, [1:43] 2026, marking the first successful passage of such a legislative vehicle by both [1:49] chambers of Congress in the history of the United States of America. In response, [1:55] and without lawful cause or excuse, Secretary Hegseth continued to direct United [2:01] States Armed Forces into hostilities with the Islamic Republic of Iran on June 26, [2:07] 2026, and continues to do so in violation of Section 1544C of Title 50, United States Code. [2:15] Secretary Hegseth abused the powers of his office through the following means. Directing, [2:21] authorizing, and sustaining hostile United States military actions in Iran after both [2:27] chambers of Congress agreed to House Concurrent Resolution 86, thereby disregarding Congress's [2:34] express and lawful direction that the United States Armed Forces be removed from such hostilities, [2:41] and failing and refusing to take all necessary steps within his authority as Secretary of Defense to [2:48] withdraw United States Armed Forces from hostilities in Iran, and directing the Department of Defense to [2:55] ignore duly agreed concurrent resolution, thereby substituting the judgment of the executive branch for [3:04] the constitutional and statutory judgment of Congress and nullifying Congress's exercise of its war powers. [3:10] Through these actions, Secretary Hegseth knowingly executed and sustained unlawful orders that treated the [3:18] executive branch as possessing authority to determine when war may be commenced, how long it may be sustained, [3:24] and whether Congress's direction to terminate hostilities must be obeyed. By implementing those orders, [3:30] he effectuated in practice the unilateral continuation of military operations against Iran despite Congress's [3:38] exclusive constitutional authority to declare war and despite Congress's formal action directing the removal of [3:46] United States Armed Forces from hostilities. This abuse of office frustrated Congress's ability to exercise its most [3:54] solemn constitutional responsibility, enabled the continuation of an unlawful war, and ignored and thus nullified the [4:03] fundamental safeguard designed to prevent United States Armed Forces from being used at the will of the executive alone. [4:11] In all of this, Secretary Hegseth has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Secretary of Defense and subversive of [4:17] constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. [4:26] Wherefore, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to the Constitution, [4:34] if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with his duties and the rule of law. [4:41] Peter Brian Hegseth thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy [4:48] any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. [4:53] Article III. Waging War in Contravention of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, Section 5b. [5:03] The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment, [5:09] and that civil officers of the United States, including the Secretary of Defense, [5:13] shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other [5:19] high crimes and misdemeanors. In his conduct while Secretary of Defense, Peter Brian Hegseth, [5:25] in violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, [5:29] and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, [5:35] especially with regard to the Commission of War, has abused the powers of the Department of Defense, [5:40] in that the Declare War Clause of the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, [5:46] vests in Congress the exclusive initiatory powers of war, while the Military, Administrative, [5:52] and Clemency Clause of the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 2, Clause 1, [5:57] establishes the President as the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and vests in him operational [6:04] control over wars lawfully authorized by Congress in an effort to statutorily delineate the circumstances [6:12] under which the President may introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities absent [6:17] Congressional authorization. The 93rd Congress of the United States enacted into law House Joint [6:23] Resolution 542, the War Powers Resolution of 1973, Public Law 93-148, by overriding the veto of [6:32] President Richard Nixon. Secretary Hegseth carried out unlawful orders, and continues to do so, [6:39] and contravention of Section 5B of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, Section 1544B of Title 50, [6:49] United States Code. Section 5B of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 provides that within 60 calendar [6:59] days after a report is submitted, or required to be submitted, to Congress by the President of the [7:06] the United States, upon the Executive introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities, [7:12] or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, [7:19] stances, whichever is earlier, the Executive shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces, [7:26] unless Congress has declared war or enacted a specific authorization for such use of the United States [7:33] Armed Forces, has extended by law such 60-day period, or is physically unable to meet as a result of an [7:42] armed attack upon the United States. Section 5B further provides that, absent a formal congressional [7:49] declaration of war, specific statutory authorization for the use of military force, or an extension of the [7:56] 60-day period enacted into law during that period, such 60-day period shall be extended for not more [8:02] than an additional 30 days if the President determines and certifies to Congress in writing that unavoidable [8:10] military necessity respecting the safety of the United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of [8:16] such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces. With respect to the United [8:24] States Armed Forces being entered into hostilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran, and indicating reliance [8:30] on and felty to the War Powers Resolution of 1973 as legal justification for entering United States Armed Forces [8:38] into hostilities with Iran, without the initiatory authority of Congress, President Donald J. Trump [8:46] transmitted on March 2, 2026, a letter informing Congress of action taken consistent with the War Powers [8:53] Office Resolution, Public Law 93-148, pursuant to 50 U.S. Code 1543A3, Public Law 93-148, Section 4A, 87, [9:07] Statute 555, and 50 U.S. Code 1543B, Public Law 93-148, Section 4B, 87, Statute 555, concerning hostilities [9:21] that had commenced in Iran on February 28, 2026. In the 60-day period following said transmission, [9:29] Congress did not enact and still has not enacted any declaration or specific statutory authorization for [9:38] the use of United States Armed Forces in hostilities against Iran or extend the applicable 60-day period by law, [9:47] despite remaining physically capable of meeting and carrying out its constitutional responsibilities. [9:53] Moreover, President Donald J. Trump did not submit the written certification required to invoke the [10:00] additional 30-day withdrawal period by May 1, 2026. Even assuming the president had validly invoked that [10:08] separate and limited 30-day extension, it would have likewise expired on June 1, 2026. Without lawful [10:16] cause or excuse, and despite the executive's initial observance of the reporting requirements [10:22] under Section 4A of the War Powers Resolution, Section 1543A3 of Title 50, United States Code, [10:30] through the president's transmission to Congress of a letter acknowledging the commencement of the [10:35] statutory timeline, Secretary Hegseth continued to direct, authorize, and sustain the use of United [10:43] States Armed Forces in hostilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran after the expiration of every [10:50] potential applicable statutory period. Secretary Hegseth continued such hostilities after the 60-day [10:58] period on May 1, 2026 and after June 1, 2026, the date on which even the maximum possible additional 30-day [11:08] withdrawal period would have expired, despite the absence of a declaration of war, specific statutory [11:14] authorization, or extension enacted by Congress. Secretary Hegseth further contravened the limited [11:21] purpose of any such additional 30-day withdrawal period by directing United States Armed Forces to [11:26] continue engaging in hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran in a manner calculated not to [11:34] terminate the unauthorized use of such forces and bring about their prompt removal, but rather to continue [11:40] prosecuting the war to pursue additional military objectives not authorized by Congress, and has [11:47] therefore directed the Department of Defense in violation of Section 1544B of Title 50 United States [11:54] Code. Secretary Hegseth abused the powers of his high office through the following means, directing, [12:00] authorizing, and sustaining hostile United States military actions in Iran after the expiration of [12:06] the 60-day period, established under Section 5B of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, despite the absence [12:13] of a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization, or an extension enacted by Congress, continued, [12:23] continuing to direct and sustain hostilities in Iran in the pursuit of additional military objectives [12:28] during and after the expiration of any potentially applicable additional 30-day period, notwithstanding [12:35] that such 30-day period could be used only when required by unavoidable military necessity respecting [12:42] the safety of the United States Armed Forces in the course of bringing about their prompt removal, [12:48] as certified as necessary by the President of the United States, a certification never transmitted to [12:53] Congress by President Donald J. Trump, pursuant to Section 1544B of Title 50 United States Code, and failing to [13:03] refuse to take all necessary steps within his authority as Secretary of Defense to terminate the [13:09] unauthorized use of the United States Armed Forces and promptly withdraw such forces from hostilities in the [13:16] Islamic Republic of Iran, and directing the Department of Defense to treat the mandatory termination requirement as [13:24] discretionary, thereby substituting the judgment of the Executive Branch for the constitutional and [13:29] statutory judgment of Congress, and nullifying the expressed command that the unauthorized use of [13:35] United States Armed Forces shall be terminated. Through these actions, Secretary Hegseth knowingly executed [13:42] and sustained unlawful orders that, in practice, displaced the constitutional and statutory judgment of Congress [13:50] by permitting the Executive Branch to determine when war may be commenced, how long it may be sustained, [13:56] and whether statutory deadlines governing unauthorized hostilities must be obeyed, and whether a war may [14:01] continue after the expiration of every period permitted by law. In all of this, Secretary Hegseth has acted in a [14:09] manner contrary to his trust as Secretary of Defense and subversive of constitutional government, to the great [14:16] prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United [14:22] States. Wherefore, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain [14:30] a threat to the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible [14:37] with his duties and the rule of law. Peter Brian Hegseth thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, [14:45] and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. [14:53] Article 4. Ignoring laws that minimize civilian casualties. The Constitution provides that the [14:59] House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment, and that civil officers of the United [15:05] States, including the Secretary of Defense, shall be removed from office on impeachment for and in [15:10] conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. In his conduct as Secretary of [15:17] Defense, and in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Secretary of Defense, [15:23] and to the best of his ability to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, [15:30] and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, [15:36] especially during the commission of war, Peter Brian Hegseth has abused the powers of the Department [15:42] of Defense. In that, using the powers of his office, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth directed the [15:51] Department of Defense in a manner that result resulted in the death or injury of more than 200 civilians [15:58] at the Shajaray Tayyabay Elementary School in Manab, Hormozgan Province, Iran. He did so through a scheme [16:08] or course of conduct that effected the systematic deterioration and removal of Department of Defense [16:15] infrastructure that Congress had mandated by law to limit collateral damage to civilians and non-military [16:22] objects during military operations. While doing so, Secretary Hegseth also cultivated a war-making [16:29] culture at the Department of Defense, which he boasts as being dismissive of, quote, [16:35] stupid rules of engagement, unquote, with preference for, quote, maximum lethality, not tepid legality, [16:42] unquote. Such combination chilled and rendered ineffective components of the Department of Defense [16:49] responsible for preventing, mitigating, and responding to civilian harm. By directing the Department [16:55] of Defense in a manner that foreseeably dismantled the safeguards necessary to distinguish civilian [17:01] objects from military objectives, Secretary Hegseth thereby effectuated the murder of civilians and [17:09] abused the trust of the men and women under his command by requiring them to conduct military operations [17:15] within a targeting and legal review system that he had deliberately degraded. This undermined the integrity [17:22] and diplomacy of the United States and its armed forces. He thus ignored and injured the interests [17:28] of the nation. Secretary Hegseth engaged in this scheme or course of conduct through the following means. [17:34] Secretary Hegseth willfully disregarded and acted to defeat the requirements of Section 184 of Title 10 [17:41] United States Code by systematically dismantling civilian protection infrastructure. In that, Secretary Hegseth [17:50] submitted a legislative proposal to Congress on May 29, 2025 requesting a repeal of Section 184 of Title 10 [17:59] United States Code, the statutory requirement for civilian protection systems at the Department of Defense, [18:06] even as Congress had fully funded such systems for fiscal year 2025 and fiscal year 2026. And after Congress did not [18:15] enact the requested repeal, Army officials nevertheless confirmed that such civilian harm mitigation activities [18:23] had been halted. Secretary Hegseth intentionally stalled and reversed implementation of the Civilian Harm [18:30] Mitigation and Response Action Plan CHMRAP and rendered ineffective the Civilian Protection Center of [18:39] Excellence, CPCOE, despite it being congressionally mandated by Section 1082 of the James M. Inhofe National [18:50] Defense Authorization Act, Public Law 117-263, and Section 936 of the John S. McCain National Defense [19:00] Authorization Act, Public Law 115-232. Secretary Hegseth eliminated funding for the Army's casualty tracking [19:09] database, the institutional system for recording and verifying civilian harm reports, so that should [19:16] civilians be harmed as a result of the United States military action, there would be no functioning system [19:21] within the Department of Defense to review, verify, and report on such harm. Secretary Hegseth willfully [19:29] refused to ensure that DOD components received adequate resources to satisfy CHMR requirements, including [19:38] by removing more than 90 percent of civilian harm mitigation and response staff assigned to combatant [19:46] commands. Secretary Hegseth failed, by the end of fiscal year 2025, to satisfy any of the 11 objectives [19:54] or complete 133 actions mandated by Congress for the prevention and mitigation of civilian harm during [20:01] armed conflict, thereby rendering every such component of the Department of Defense's civilian harm [20:07] prevention apparatus partially or totally ineffective by the time the United States military combat [20:14] operations against Iran began in early 2026. Secretary Hegseth removed, without reason or cause, [20:23] the senior-most Judge Advocates General of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, thereby undermining independent [20:31] legal oversight of combat operations and legal advice to commanders on the law of armed conflict. [20:37] Secretary Hegseth promulgated the 2026 National Defense Strategy, with all references to civilian [20:45] protection omitted, marking a deliberate and unprecedented departure from prior defense policy that had [20:52] recognized, in accordance with law, civilian harm mitigation as a strategic priority. Secretary Hegseth, [21:00] from the outset of his tenure, instigated a Department culture hostile to the law of armed conflict and the [21:08] protection of civilians through his public and repeated denigration of rules of engagement as, quote, [21:14] stupid, politically incorrect, and overbearing. In that, on September 30, 2025, while addressing the [21:22] largest assembled gathering of United States generals and admirals in American history, Secretary Hegseth boasted [21:29] that we, the United States military, quote, don't fight with stupid rules of engagement, unquote. Upon lawfully [21:38] renaming, upon unlawfully renaming the Department of Defense, the Department of War, on September 5, [21:44] 2025, he poetically proclaimed, quote, maximum lethality, not tepid legality, violent effect, not politically [21:55] correct, unquote. During his confirmation hearing on January 14, 2025, he told the Senate Armed Services Committee he had, [22:05] quote, thought very deeply about the balance between legality and lethality, ensuring that the men and [22:10] women on the front lines have the opportunity to destroy with and close the enemy and that lawyers [22:16] aren't the ones getting in the way, unquote. Secretary Hegseth undermined effective journalistic oversight by [22:23] expelling the traditional Pentagon press corps and imposing credentialing rules that restricted journalists [22:31] from soliciting or publishing unapproved materials, thereby weakening independent reporting on civilian [22:37] harm on matters affecting the welfare and safety of the United States service members by journalists most [22:43] familiar with the Department of Defense. These actions were not isolated administrative or rhetorical [22:49] choices. Taken together, they degraded the personnel, institutional systems, independent legal review, [22:56] and civilian protection safeguards upon which the Department of Defense relies to verify the current [23:03] status of proposed targets, distinguish civilian objects from military objectives, reassess targets [23:10] as circumstances change, and prevent or mitigate civilian harm. The foreseeable consequences of Secretary [23:18] Hegseth's scheme manifested in the United States strike on the Shajara Tayabe Elementary School, [23:27] which killed and injured more than 200 civilians and exposed systemic failures in the Department of [23:33] Defense targeting process. The events of that strike and the reported events leading to it are as follows. [23:41] On the morning of February 28, 2026, at approximately 9.45 a.m. local time, the United States, in partnership [23:49] with Israel, launched Operation Epic Fury, commencing the 2026 Iran War. Within the first hour of the U.S. [23:57] Israeli offensive into southern Iran, three BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from United States [24:06] Navy warships impacted the elementary school between 10.23 and 10.45 a.m. local time. Because the war was [24:16] commenced mid-morning on a Saturday, the first day of the Iranian workweek, students were in attendance at [24:22] the school. Despite an attempted evacuation of the school, at the time of the first cruise missiles [24:29] impact, between 170 and 264 students were present in the facility, most of whom were girls between [24:37] the ages of 7 and 12. Whereas it is unclear how many casualties were inflicted by the first impact, [24:44] which caused a partial destruction of the structure and the collapse of its roof, it is reported that [24:50] students were then sheltered in a prayer room deeper in the facility, waiting for rescuers, [24:56] when a second and a third missile in rapid succession impacted the building. Reported death [25:03] tolls from the strikes on the elementary school indicate that at least 156 civilians were killed, [25:09] with some reports suggesting the civilian death toll surpassed 170. Those killed include at least 120 [25:17] school children, 26 teachers, seven parents, attempting to evacuate their children, a school bus driver, [25:25] a pharmacy technician from a nearby clinic, and the six-month-old unborn child of one of the teachers [25:31] also killed in the attack. An estimated 95 other individuals were wounded. Under United States military [25:39] doctrine and the law of armed conflict, which Secretary Hegseth is obligated to uphold, [25:45] the lawfulness of an attack does not depend solely upon whether civilians were deliberately selected [25:51] for the purpose of harming them. The obligations of distinction, target verification, and feasible [25:58] precaution require military decision makers to determine in good faith that an object is a lawful [26:04] military objective on the basis of information reasonably available at the time. A failure to undertake [26:11] the verification and review required by those obligations may render an attack unlawful, a failure [26:18] directly caused by Secretary Hegseth's dismantling of key infrastructure designed to prevent such errors. [26:25] With respect to the strike on the elementary school, those institutional failures manifested [26:31] in systemic non-compliance with Department of Defense targeting and doctrine and legal guidance. [26:37] The strike on the elementary school was not an isolated targeting failure divorced from the [26:42] conduct of the Secretary of Defense, nor can Secretary Hegseth's conduct be dismissed as a single [26:49] targeting error or an isolated failure in the fog of war. The elementary school was struck after [26:55] Secretary Hegseth sought to repeal congressionally mandated civilian protection requirements, dismantled the [27:02] department's civilian harm mitigation infrastructure, removed the senior most judge advocates general [27:07] responsible for independent legal oversight, stripped civilian protection from the national defense [27:13] strategy, and publicly denigrated legal restraints on military force as obstacles to maximum lethality. [27:22] He thereby weakened nearly every institutional safeguard designed to minimize civilian casualties inflicted by [27:29] the United States military and then presided over a targeting process in which a functioning [27:35] elementary school was struck three times, killing and wounding more than 200 civilians, mostly children. [27:42] Such conduct reflects not merely a failure of judgment, but an extraordinary abuse of the powers [27:47] entrusted to the Secretary of Defense and a profound disregard for the civilians his department was [27:53] obligated to protect and the service members he was entrusted to lead. In all of this, Secretary Hegseth [28:01] willfully and systemically refused to comply with laws and directives mandated for the protection of [28:08] civilians during the Commission of Armed Conflict, chilled and rendered ineffective such components to [28:14] prevent and mitigate harm to civilians, and therefore foreseeably affected the death and injury of over 200 [28:21] civilians to the manifest injury of the United States. Wherefore, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth, by such conduct, [28:29] has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to civilians, the lawful conduct of the United [28:36] States military operations, the integrity and credibility of the United States Armed Forces, [28:41] and the Constitution, if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible [28:48] with his duties and the rule of law, Peter Brian Hegseth thus warrants impeachment, trial, removal from office, and [28:55] qualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. [29:01] Article 5. Extrajudicial killings. The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment, and that civil [29:11] officers of the United States, including the Secretary of Defense, shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. In his conduct as Secretary of Defense, Peter Brian Hegseth, [29:13] in violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, especially with regard to the Commission of War, has abused the powers of the Department of Defense. [29:31] In that, using the powers of his office, Secretary of Defense, Peter Hegseth directed the Department of Defense in a manner that resulted in the extrajudicial killings of at least 243 persons aboard seagoing vessels alleged [30:01] to be smuggling narcotics in the Caribbean Sea and the Eastern Pacific Ocean, principally in international waters. He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that chilled independent legal review within the Department of Defense, constructed a purported legal basis for the use of military force without constitutional or statutory authorization, [30:24] and displaced longstanding precedent and codified maritime law enforcement practices that are jurisdictionally assigned to the Coast Guard and law enforcement agencies by substituting in such place the use of summary lethal force by Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps elements. [30:45] While doing so, Secretary Hegseth also oversaw orders denying corridor and failing to provide rescue, including secondary strikes against shipwrecked survivors who were ordered to combat, [30:59] and the abandonment of shipwrecked survivors at sea, thereby endangering members of our own armed forces in future military engagements by encouraging adversaries to subject American service members to the same treatment. [31:13] By subjecting persons merely suspected of criminal conduct to lethal military force without judicial process, without congressional authorization, and without establishing a lawful basis for treating such persons or vessels as military targets, [31:30] Secretary Hegseth arrogated to himself and the executive branch the roles of judge, jury, and executioner, and asserted a unilateral power to determine who may live and who may die. [31:43] Such a power is foreign to the rule of law, repugnant to the legal traditions and fundamental values of the United States and the Western world, [31:52] and contrary to the United States law and customary international law. [31:56] This conduct undermined the integrity and credibility of the United States and its armed forces, damaged the diplomatic standing of the United States, and injured the interests of this nation. [32:07] Secretary Hegseth engaged in this scheme or course of conduct through the following means. [32:14] Secretary Hegseth authorized strikes beginning on September 2, 2025, without authorization from Congress pursuant to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution. [32:26] And in the absence of a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization for the use of military force, or a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States, its territories, or possessions, or its armed forces, as provided in Chapter 33 of Title 50 United States Code. [32:46] Secretary Hegseth ordered and oversaw the strike campaign against seagoing vessels alleged to be smuggling narcotics in international waters, [32:55] comprising at least 69 separate attack events, 46 in the Eastern Pacific Ocean, 21 in the Caribbean Sea, and 2 in unspecified locations, which at least struck 73 vessels and killed at least 243 individuals. [33:13] In doing so, Secretary Hegseth displaced the statutory framework established by Sections 70503 and 70504 of Title 46 United States Code, under which Congress expressly treated maritime narcotics offenses, [33:30] including conduct occurring on the high seas, as federal crimes subject to apprehension, prosecution, and trial in an appropriate United States District Court, [33:40] and instead treated such offenses as predicates for lethal military targeting. [33:45] Secretary Hegseth disregarded the statutory restrictions in Section 274 and 275 of Title 10 United States Code, governing direct participation by members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in civilian law enforcement activities, [34:03] including federal narcotics enforcement, by employing lethal military force against persons suspected of drug trafficking, [34:11] absent any congressionally enacted authorization for the use of military force, or other statutory authorization for such direct military action. [34:20] Secretary Hegseth disregarded the maritime law enforcement framework established by Sections 102 and 522 of Title 14 United States Code, [34:30] as well as Section 279 of Title 10 United States Code, under which only the Coast Guard is authorized to conduct interdiction, search, seizure, and arrest. [34:39] And he did so by directing members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps to employ lethal military force in place of the law enforcement process. [34:50] Secretary Hegseth established targeting guidelines for such strikes on August 5, 2025, by issuing an executive order, by issuing an execute order, [35:04] directing the use of United States military force against persons alleged to be members or affiliates of certain designated terrorist organizations, as follows. [35:16] Secretary Hegseth established guidelines that used designated terrorist organizations as a targeting category. [35:24] Notwithstanding, that term is not a congressionally created designation conferring authority to use military force. [35:30] It did not require positive identification of any targeted person, but instead required only reasonable certainty that such person was a member or an affiliate of a designated terrorist organization. [35:43] A threshold lower than the near certainty standard established for drone strikes on suspected al-Qaeda militants during the congressionally authorized global war on terror. [35:53] And did not require the presence of weapons or narcotics on targeted vessels alleged to be smuggling narcotics in association with a designated terrorist organization. [36:06] Secretary Hegseth, Secretary Hegseth, in the course of such strikes, oversaw orders resulting in the denial of quarter and the failure to provide timely rescue for shipwreck survivors of initial strikes, including on September 2, 2025, during the first strike of the campaign, [36:22] the United States Navy attacked a seagoing vessel carrying 11 persons between the coast of Venezuela and the nearby Caribbean nation of Trinidad and Tobago. [36:35] The strike destroyed and capsized the vessel. [36:40] Approximately 45 minutes later, while two survivors clung to the wreckage, a secondary strike was ordered, killing both survivors. [36:47] In doing so, Secretary Hegseth has endangered members of our armed forces in future military engagements by encouraging adversaries to subject our American service members to the same treatment. [37:00] And on December 30, 2025, United States Southern Command attacked three vessels approximately 400 nautical miles southwest of Ocos Guatemala in the eastern Pacific Ocean, killing three persons and leaving eight other shipwrecked. [37:15] Although the campaign had been underway for approximately four months, no recovery assets had been pre-positioned to rescue survivors. [37:23] Rescue assets did not arrive until approximately 45 hours after the strikes, by which time all eight shipwrecked survivors had died at sea. [37:34] In doing so, Secretary Hegseth has endangered members of our own armed forces in future military engagements by encouraging our adversaries to subject our American service members to the same treatment. [37:47] Secretary Hegseth took actions to preempt, constrain, and overcome independent legal objections within the Department of Defense concerning the lawfulness of such strikes, including Secretary Hegseth removed the senior most judge advocates general of the Army, Navy, and Air Force without stating a reason or cause, thereby foreseeably chilling the exercise of independent legal judgment by judge advocates tasked with advising military commanders on the lawfulness. [38:04] of combat operations, and subsequently stating at a Pentagon press conference on a Pentagon press conference on February 25, 2025, that he did not want military lawyers to serve as roadblocks to orders that are given by a commander-in-chief. [38:29] Secretary Hegseth employed an interagency group of lawyers comprising four career officials and four political appointees from the Department of Defense, the Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Central Intelligence Agency, the White House, and the Office of Legal Counsel to develop a classified memorandum purporting to establish a legal basis for such strikes and to address anticipated objections to their execution, falsely asserting the following, [39:00] that the United States that the United States is engaged in non-international armed conflict with 24 Latin American designated terrorist organizations, thereby attempting to displace the governing law enforcement framework, as established in paragraph 2, and substitute an armed conflict framework for the conduct of military operations against such organizations, despite the absence of congressional authorization for such military action. [39:29] Notwithstanding that, pursuant to Little v. Barham 1804 and Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA 2014, an executive branch legal memorandum cannot enlarge authority conferred by Congress or legalized conduct otherwise unauthorized by statute. [39:48] That the strikes do not constitute hostilities within the meaning of chapter 33 of Title 50 United States Code because they do not place United States personnel in danger, presumptively on the basis that such vessels are incapable of self-defense, a predicate that would likewise mean that any military action conducted by drone or any air strike against a target lacking air defense capabilities could also not constitute hostilities. [40:16] That the designated terrorist organizations are engaged in armed violence against the security forces of allied nations, including Mexico, and such violence is financed through cocaine trafficking, such that the strikes may be characterized as attacks against cocaine shipments, and the deaths of persons aboard targeted vessels as collateral damage, a rationale inconsistent with the execute order targeting guidelines described in paragraph 3, which [40:47] which did not require narcotics to be present aboard a targeted vessel, and instead authorized targeting based on alleged designated terrorist organization membership or affiliation. [40:58] Secretary Hegseth abused the authority and trust vested in him as Secretary of Defense not only by directing the unlawful use of lethal military force resulting in the summary execution of at least 243 persons in international waters, [41:13] but also by using his office to compel members of the armed forces to carry out such operations under false legal authorities that he caused to be constructed and imposed upon the chain of command. [41:25] In denying quarter and refusing rescue, Secretary Hegseth endangered members of our United States Armed Forces in future military engagements by encouraging adversaries to subject our American service members to such treatment. [41:40] Secretary Hegseth, Secretary Hegseth further endangered United States law enforcement personnel by substituting lethal military targeting for the established maritime law enforcement practices of interdiction, search, seizure, arrest, and prosecution. [41:56] By demonstrating that vessels merely suspected of narcotics trafficking may be destroyed and their occupants killed rather than interdicted and arrested, Secretary Hegseth foreseeably increased the likelihood that persons aboard [42:11] aboard such vessels will perceive future encounters with United States authorities as threats to their lives and respond with lethal force rather than surrender. [42:23] In this manner, his conduct not only endangered the persons unlawfully targeted by the strike campaign, but also made lawful enforcement of the United States narcotics laws at sea more dangerous for the Coast Guard and other federal personnel charged with carrying them out. [42:39] In all of this, Secretary Hegseth has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Secretary of Defense and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States of America. [42:56] Wherefore, Secretary Hegseth, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to civilians and the laws of war, the integrity of the United States diplomacy, and the Constitution, if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with his duties and the rule of law, Peter Brian Hegseth thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. [43:24] Article 6, suppressing free speech. [43:30] The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment, and that civil officers of the United States, including the Secretary of Defense, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. [43:46] And his conduct, while Secretary of Defense, Peter Brian Hegseth, in violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and to faithfully discharge the duties of his office, abused the powers entrusted to him by retaliating against a member of Congress for constitutionally protected speech, and attempting to subject a member of a coordinate branch of government to executive branch punishment for the exercise of his legislative and [44:16] oversight responsibilities. [44:18] In that, on November 18, 2025, Senator Mark Kelly, a retired United States Navy Captain and National Aeronautics and Space Administration astronaut, who flew 39 combat missions during the first Gulf War, and who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee, appeared in his official capacity as a Senator in a video addressed to members of the United States Armed Forces, stating, [44:47] quote, [44:49] our laws are clear, you can refuse illegal orders, unquote. [44:54] Despite such a statement being consistent with decisions in United States versus Kenan, 1969, and United States versus Kali, 1973, Secretary Hegseth weaponized the Department of Defense to retaliate against and intimidate Senator Mark Kelly for such a statement. [45:14] Secretary Hegseth did so despite the fact that Senator Kelly is a sitting United States Senator who cannot fulfill his role in representative government if he fears executive branch reprisals for expressing his views. [45:30] As the Supreme Court held in Bond v. Floyd, 1966, quote, [45:34] representative government requires that legislators be given the widest latitude to express their views on issues of policy, unquote. [45:44] Members of Congress, moreover, enjoy speech or debate immunity under Article 1, Section 6, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, and Senator Kelly, as a retired service member, is entitled to the full breadth of First Amendment protection. [46:01] Using the powers of Congress, Secretary Hegseth retaliated against and sought to intimidate United States Senator Mark Kelly for his statement through a scheme or course of conduct intended to interfere with Congress's constitutional authority to oversee the executive branch. [46:17] Grossly expand Article 2 powers at the expense of both the legislative and judicial branches of government and establish a precedent that would chill the protected speech of millions of retired United States service members and inflict irreparable harm on their First Amendment freedoms. [46:36] Secretary Hegseth engaged in this scheme or course of conduct through the following means. [46:41] On November 24, 2025, the Department of Defense, through a social media post on X, threatened that Senator Mark Kelly could be recalled to active duty for court martial proceedings or administrative measures for his statement. [46:57] On November 25, 2025, Secretary Hegseth directed the Secretary of the Navy to review Senator Kelly. [47:05] On January 5, 2026, Secretary Hegseth issued a secretarial letter of censure against Senator Kelly for [47:14] A. Saying you can refuse illegal orders. [47:19] B. Saying he would always defend the Constitution. [47:23] C. Questioning the legality of military operations as a member of the Senate Armed Services and Intelligence Committees. [47:32] D. Criticizing military leadership for surrounding himself with yes men. [47:39] And E. Allegedly accusing Secretary Hegseth of war crimes. [47:45] In the letter of censure, Secretary Hegseth also threatened Senator Kelly with criminal prosecution or further administrative action, [47:53] including the reduction of Senator Kelly's retired military grade should the Senator continue to question the legality of military operations or criticize Secretary Hegseth. [48:05] In response to a January 12, 2026 complaint filed by Senator Mark Kerry against Secretary Hegseth for retaliating against and intimidating the Senator for his First Amendment protected speech, [48:19] Secretary Hegseth filed a memorandum of opposition to Senator Kelly's motion for a preliminary injunction, [48:26] egregiously asserting that A. Senator Kelly, as a retired naval officer, has diminished First Amendment protections. [48:37] B. Department of Defense actions against Senator Kelly's constitutional rights due to his statements relating to military affairs and his being a retired naval officer constitute non-judiciable military personnel decisions. [48:54] C. Secretary Hegseth's opinions supersede the court's jurisdiction to determine whether the government could censure, threaten, and financially punish Senator Kelly because of his speech. [49:07] C. And D. Senator Kelly is required to exhaust military administrative remedies before seeking relief in an Article III court, [49:15] thereby seeking to place the adjudication of Senator Kelly's constitutional rights within military processes controlled by the executive branch. [49:23] Thus, in addition to abusing the powers of the Office of the Secretary of Defense for politically motivated reprisal against Senator Kelly [49:33] for the Senator's criticism of conduct implicating potential war crimes, Secretary Hegseth grossly violated or sought to violate the separation of powers [49:43] by attempting to subordinate both the legislative and judicial branches in matters concerning constitutional rights to the authority of the Department of Defense. [49:53] In the same effort Secretary Hegseth sought without precedent to extend to retired service members the diminished First Amendment protections applicable to active duty service members under Parker V. Levy in 1974, [50:09] including retired service members serving in Congress and exercising constitutional oversight over the military. [50:17] He further asserted, in substance, that the military rather than Article III courts possesses supremacy to determine the constitutional rights of civilians [50:27] and to adjudicate whether its own actions conform to the Constitution and the laws of the United States, [50:33] at a minimum with respect to the speech of retired service members, [50:37] despite such position being in flagrant conflict with Marbury v. Madison, 1803, [50:44] which holds that it is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is, not the military. [50:52] The result of such effort, had Secretary Hegseth been successful, [50:58] would have subjected the speech and congressional oversight activities of nearly 20 percent of the current Congress, [51:05] and whatever proportion of future Congresses may consist of retired service members, [51:10] as well as the speech of millions of other retired service members, [51:14] to the will and discretion of the Department of Defense, [51:17] without any immediate avenue of recourse outside the Department to vindicate their constitutional rights. [51:26] Such a result would constitute one of the most extraordinary expansions of executive branch power in the history of the United States. [51:33] In all of this, Secretary Hegseth abused the powers of the Department of Defense [51:38] by retaliating against and attempting to intimidate a sitting United States Senator [51:44] through threats of punishment for speech protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, [51:50] in an effort to deter that Senator from fulfilling his constitutional role in overseeing the executive branch. [51:57] In doing so, Secretary Hegseth weaponized the Department of Defense to chill a core function of the legislative branch, [52:05] encroach upon the constitutional role of the judicial branch by seeking to insulate such retaliation for meaningful judicial review, [52:14] and, through the precedent he sought to establish, [52:18] place the First Amendment rights of millions of United States veterans at risk of irreparable harm. [52:23] Wherefore, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth, by such conduct, [52:27] has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to the Constitution and the separation of powers, [52:32] if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with his duties, [52:38] the rule of law, and the constitutional liberties entrusted to his protection. [52:42] Peter Brian Hegseth thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, [52:49] and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. [52:56] Article 7. Kidnapping of a sovereign foreign leader. [53:00] The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment, [53:05] and that civil officers of the United States, including the Secretary of Defense, [53:10] shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, [53:17] in his conduct of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, [53:21] and in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the Office of Secretary of Defense, [53:27] and to the best of his ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, [53:33] and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, [53:39] especially during the Commission of War, [53:41] Peter Brian Hegseth has abused the powers of the Department of Defense in that, [53:47] using the powers of his office, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth directed the Department of Defense [53:53] to carry out an unprecedented military operation, codenamed Absolute Resolve, [53:59] to capture and kidnap President Nicolas Maduro, [54:03] the leader of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, [54:07] and his wife, Celia Flores, from Venezuela, [54:11] an act of war against a sovereign country executed under the guise of narcotics law enforcement, [54:16] though in actuality intended to assert U.S. control over Venezuela's oil reserves. [54:23] In doing so, he gambled the lives of Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps personnel [54:29] in order to facilitate the illegal taking of national oil. [54:34] To wit, immediately following such attack, Secretary Hegseth appeared alongside President Donald J. Trump, [54:41] during which the President announced, in reference to Venezuela, [54:45] quote, [54:47] we're going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper, and judicious transition. [54:53] So we don't want to be involved with having somebody else get in, [54:58] and we have the same situation that we had. [55:01] We're going to run it, essentially. [55:03] And, we're going to have our very large United States oil companies, [55:10] the biggest anywhere in the world, go in and start making money. [55:14] And we are ready to stage a second and much larger attack if we need to do so, unquote. [55:20] Thus revealing the motives behind the forcible removal of President Maduro, [55:26] which extended far beyond the narcotics law enforcement rationale on which the operation was falsely predicated. [55:32] On January 3rd, 2026, Secretary Hegseth directed United States Armed Forces into hostilities in and around Caracas, Venezuela, [55:41] employing more than 200 United States Special Operations personnel on the ground [55:47] and more than 150 aircraft and drones, including fighter aircraft, bombers, armed helicopters, and electronic warfare aircraft, [55:56] supported by a substantial naval force that included the Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group [56:02] and the Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group, which together penetrated Venezuelan territory, [56:08] suppressed and destroyed Venezuelan air defenses, struck multiple targets in the Caracas area, [56:14] inserted an armed ground force into Caracas to seize Maduro, successfully kidnapped Maduro, [56:21] killed at least 83 people, including several civilians, and caused seven American casualties. [56:27] In doing so, Secretary Hegseth executed unlawful orders affecting the removal of the president of a sovereign nation, [56:37] placed boots on the ground, conducted preparatory bombardments, inflicted substantial casualties, [56:43] and subsequently caused regime change, each of which constitutes acts of war. [56:50] Secretary Hegseth executed unlawful orders violating Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution [56:58] by ordering United States Armed Forces to commit an act of war against Venezuela [57:03] without a declaration of war by Congress against such a nation, [57:07] and by making rules concerning captures on land, a power specifically vested in Congress, [57:14] where Congress had made no rules authorizing or otherwise applicable to such operation. [57:20] Secretary Hegseth executed unlawful orders in contravention of Section 2C of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, [57:27] Section 1541C of Title 50, United States Code, [57:31] by entering United States Armed Forces into hostilities in Venezuela on January 3, 2026, [57:38] without a declaration of war, a specific statutory authorization, [57:43] or a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States, [57:47] its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. [57:50] Through these actions, Secretary Hegseth knowingly directed United States Armed Forces into hostilities [57:56] against a sovereign foreign nation without clear constitutional or specific statutory authority, [58:02] employing military force of a nature and magnitude rising to the level of constitutional war. [58:09] In doing so, Secretary Hegseth usurped Congress's constitutional authority over war [58:14] and transformed the Department of Defense into an instrument for objectives extending far beyond the apprehension [58:21] of Nicolas Maduro for purposes of narcotics law enforcement, [58:26] including regime change and the acquisition of foreign oil. [58:31] In all of this, Secretary Hegseth abused the powers of the Department of Defense, [58:36] violated the laws and treaty obligations of the United States, [58:40] and subordinated the constitutional allocation of war powers [58:44] to executive objectives neither authorized nor approved by Congress. [58:49] Wherefore, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth, by such conduct, [58:53] has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to the Constitution [58:57] and to the well-being of the United States military personnel [59:00] if allowed to remain in office, [59:04] and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with his duties and the rule of law. [59:09] Peter Brian Hegseth thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, [59:13] and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. [59:20] Article 8. Unlawful war in Yemen. [59:24] The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives [59:27] shall have the sole power of impeachment, [59:29] and that civil officers of the United States, including the Secretary of Defense, [59:33] shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, [59:37] treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. [59:41] In his conduct while Secretary of Defense, Peter Brian Hegseth, [59:44] in violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, [59:49] and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, [59:54] especially with regard to the Commission of War, [59:57] has abused the powers of the Department of Defense, [1:00:00] in that, using the powers of his office, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth directed the Department of Defense [1:00:07] in a manner leading to the deaths of an estimated 224 civilians, [1:00:12] as well as approximately 500 to 600 Houthi fighters, [1:00:17] through the initiation and direction of Operation Rough Rider. [1:00:22] The operation comprised more than 1,100 strikes against targets in Yemen over approximately 52 days. [1:00:29] In less than eight weeks, there were nearly as many civilian deaths in Yemen [1:00:33] as the United States military actions had caused in that country during the preceding 23 years. [1:00:39] Secretary Hegseth initiated and directed these hostilities [1:00:44] in the absence of any of the predicates required in Section 2C of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 [1:00:51] for the President to introduce United States military armed forces into hostilities. [1:00:58] Moreover, Secretary Hegseth acknowledged the absence of any imminent threat to the United States, [1:01:04] further undermining any assertion of Article 2 authority [1:01:08] to initiate such hostilities without congressional authorization. [1:01:12] Secretary Hegseth initiated and directed Operation Rough Rider without congressional approval [1:01:19] pursuant to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution, [1:01:25] or statutory authorization, in that Secretary Hegseth executed unlawful orders in contravention of Section 2C [1:01:33] of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, Section 1541C of Title 50, United States Code, [1:01:41] by entering and sustaining United States Navy and Air Force personnel into hostilities in Yemen. [1:01:47] It was announced that Secretary Hegseth took the [1:01:49] FBI to leave and [1:01:57] the air section of the United States military and the United States. [1:01:59] It was made to render to the United States military and the United States military and the U.S. [1:02:02] of the United States. [1:02:05] The Secretary Hegseth executed unlawful orders in contravention of Section 4A of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, [1:02:11] 1973 section 1543a of title 50 united states code by continuing to direct the united states armed [1:02:20] forces into hostilities in yemen after march 17 2025 despite the president of the united states [1:02:28] having failed to notify congress of such hostilities within 48 hours of their commencement [1:02:34] as required by section 4a and notwithstanding that the president did not transmit [1:02:40] such report to congress until march 28 2025 thereby further undermining any possible article 2 [1:02:48] authority for the continued hostilities especially during such 13-day period outside of the requirements [1:02:56] to engage in hostilities pursuant to the war powers resolution of 1973 secretary hegseth directed [1:03:02] operation roughrider in the absence of any imminent threat requiring military action without prior [1:03:08] congressional authorization as evidenced by a leak signal chat involving secretary hegseth [1:03:16] concerning the potential execution of operation roughrider in which several senior united states [1:03:24] government officials including secretary hegseth each possessing unfettered access to military and [1:03:30] intelligence information advised that there was no immediate need to enter united states armed forces [1:03:36] into hostilities in yemen thereby asserting there was no imminent threat to the united states [1:03:42] its possessions or territories or its armed forces as indicated through the following communications [1:03:49] vice president jd vance stating quote there is a strong argument for delaying a month unquote then [1:03:57] acting chief of staff to the national security advisor joe kent stating quote there is nothing time [1:04:04] sensitive driving this timeline will have the exact same options in a month unquote central intelligence [1:04:11] agency director john radcliffe stating quote a delay would not negatively impact us and an additional [1:04:18] and additional time would be used to identify better starting points for coverage [1:04:23] on hooty leadership unquote and and addressing the timing of roughrider operation roughrider secretary hegseth [1:04:33] himself stated quote we can easily pause unquote addressing the vice president's concerns regarding [1:04:42] operation roughrider's immediate commencement secretary hegseth stated quote vp i understand your concerns [1:04:50] two immediate risks on waiting this if this leaks and we look indecisive israel takes action first or gaza [1:05:01] ceasefire falls apart and we don't get to start this on our own terms this is about the hootis [1:05:11] re-establishing deterrence which biden cratered unquote thus secretary hegseth knew there was no [1:05:19] imminent threat to the united states its territories or possessions or its armed forces as had such a threat [1:05:26] existed there would have been no basis for him to state that we can easily pause moreover the only [1:05:33] immediate risks identified by secretary hegseth concerned media optics and israeli affairs rather [1:05:40] than the direct affairs of the united states of america the nation to which his oath is sworn in all [1:05:46] of this secretary hegseth abused the powers entrusted to him as secretary of defense by subordinating the [1:05:53] constitutional limits on the use of military force and the laws governing the conduct of hostilities to [1:05:59] his own policy objectives notwithstanding his knowledge that no imminent threat to the united [1:06:04] states existed and demonstrated a profound disregard for civilian life the rule of law the constitutional [1:06:11] authority of congress and his duty to ensure the lawful conduct of the united states armed forces wherefore [1:06:19] secretary of defense peter hegseth by such conduct has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to [1:06:25] civilians the lawful conduct of the united states military operations the integrity and credibility of [1:06:30] the united states armed forces and the constitution if allowed to remain in office and has acted in a [1:06:36] manner grossly incompatible with his duties and the rule of law peter bryan hegseth thus warrants impeachment [1:06:42] and trial removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor trust or profit [1:06:51] under the united states i yield back under rule nine a resolution offered from the floor by a member [1:07:01] other than the majority leader or the minority leader as a question of the privileges of the house [1:07:06] has immediate precedence only at a time designated by the chair within two legislative days after the [1:07:12] resolution is properly noticed pending that designation the form of the resolution noticed by the [1:07:18] gentleman from kentucky will appear in the record at this point the chair will not at this point [1:07:24] determine whether the resolution constitutes a question of privilege that determination will [1:07:29] be made at the time designated for consideration of the resolution well we've got six minutes but [1:07:41] it looks like there's enough people here to have a press conference so we'll go ahead and start [1:07:45] won't keep you waiting uh in this chilly air there are eight articles of impeachment that i've just [1:07:52] introduced i'll be glad to take your questions on it the one thing that i want to point out here is [1:07:59] um a lot of a lot of people are saying well i think peter hegseth's effective he's he's good at his job [1:08:08] and so i don't want to vote for these articles of impeachment well the reality is we're not indicting [1:08:14] him for being bad at his job in fact he was very effective at killing school children in iran he was very [1:08:21] effective at extrajudicial killings there's no argument in these impeachment articles that he's ineffective [1:08:28] the argument here is that he's broken laws and he's violated the constitution and so that's the [1:08:35] question put in front of my colleagues now i understand that some of them may want to vote for [1:08:41] this because they just want to see hegseth gone i'll welcome their vote if that's the if that's the reason [1:08:47] and they choose not to read the articles of impeachment but i would encourage people to take them very [1:08:52] seriously the three the first three articles of impeachment are centered on the 1973 war powers [1:08:59] resolution and the the white house legal council has tried to go around these things i'm sure they've [1:09:07] advised the president and the vice president and even the secretary of defense not to use the word war [1:09:13] because and you see their tortured use of the english language in the early days of this they tried to [1:09:18] not call it a war but ultimately the the president calls it a war every day he's tired of the semantics [1:09:25] but what he's admitting to is that puts them in violation of 1973 war powers resolution they didn't [1:09:33] meet the requirements to take action without congress that's the the first article of impeachment [1:09:38] the second article of impeachment is that they um there was a concurrent resolution of congress like [1:09:44] there's no argument here if this were in a courtroom we wouldn't need witnesses uh we wouldn't need to [1:09:50] provide evidence both sides acknowledge that there was a concurrent resolution passed by the house and [1:09:56] the senate and that that's the prescription in the 1973 war powers act to stop a war or unauthorized [1:10:04] activity by the president if that's what congress wants to do well that's what we did and they didn't [1:10:09] stop so how do you litigate this in reality speaker johnson should bring a lawsuit [1:10:14] against the executive branch what i believe the executive branch will tell you is we know that's [1:10:20] a law on the books and we know we're violating it but we don't like that law we believe it's [1:10:26] constitution it's unconstitutional in in light of chata versus ins which actually had very little to [1:10:33] do with the war powers resolution congress could have reconvened in light of that supreme court decision [1:10:39] which was on legislative vetoes and they could have struck down this law but they didn't the law is on the [1:10:44] books that pete hegseth is obligated to follow the laws on the books not the laws that he wants to [1:10:50] follow and so that's there's a problem there now is for the question of do they do they even acknowledge [1:10:57] the 1973 wars powers act and that it's a law that's on the books well they absolutely do because another [1:11:04] provision is uh has to do with my third article of impeachment which it says if the president and the [1:11:12] secretary of defense engage in some kind of unlawful or unauthorized military activity which would have [1:11:20] to meet the predicates in the 1973 war powers act and they don't but let's say they did meet the [1:11:25] predicates in the 1973 war powers act and they engaged in this unauthorized activity they've got [1:11:32] exactly 60 days to get authorization from congress and in the and if congress doesn't do anything [1:11:39] they have to stop now they can ask for a 30-day extension which they never did and the 30-day [1:11:44] extension only applies if you want to if you need 30 more days to get back out of the country safely [1:11:49] with your military well what what is their legal argument here well on on day 61 they announced the [1:11:58] war was over they didn't need congressional authorization the war is over nothing to see here but then they [1:12:05] commenced within a couple weeks the war again the war was never over there was never a legitimate stop [1:12:12] to the war and this is and even the president himself acknowledges this is one continuous war [1:12:18] yet the the legal beagles at the white house are saying when they send letters to congress that every time [1:12:25] they commence another attack in iran they're effectively starting another military action that's unrelated [1:12:31] to the war that's already going on because if they did acknowledge that and didn't have this shaky [1:12:38] legal scaffolding then they would have to acknowledge that they're violating the law so [1:12:44] that's the third article of impeachment the p so which gets me to the fourth one so some of you may [1:12:51] ask congress embassy why didn't you impeach president trump why it looks like a lot of this has to do [1:12:58] with things that the president directed hegseth to do well two of these articles of impeachment [1:13:05] belong to hegseth himself it is true that the president is culpable by asking hegseth to carry [1:13:12] out these orders and but hegseth should not carry out illegal orders and that's why we're impeaching him [1:13:19] but one of the articles that hegseth took upon himself to create articles of impeachment is he [1:13:25] he he basically took apart the function inside of the department of defense that makes sure they're [1:13:34] not going to strike civilians and the predictable and absolute result of that was they struck this [1:13:42] all these school kids on the first day of the war now there's something called the fog of war maybe [1:13:48] you know you're in a battle and you don't have time to pay a lot of attention and you're you're [1:13:52] shooting wherever you got to shoot there's no fog of war on the first day you've had months to identify [1:13:58] these targets and pick them yet they pick a school building on a school day with school kids in it and [1:14:04] then struck it again and then struck it again so that is the foreseeable and obvious and unfortunate [1:14:12] consequence of something pete hegseth did himself at the department of defense now you've you've also got [1:14:19] the extrajudicial killings in the pacific and the caribbean they're trying to say those are police [1:14:26] actions they're not only are they striking people without identifying them they don't know who all [1:14:32] those people are in the boat they're going back and killing all the survivors this puts our own [1:14:37] military in danger in any kind of future military engagement because what will happen is we're [1:14:42] encouraging others not to give our soldiers quarter not to rescue our shipwrecked sailors if that should [1:14:48] happen to our military men and women perhaps the most ironic article of impeachment in here is the [1:14:56] one where he hegseth abused his powers to go after senator mark kelly he tried to put the the military and [1:15:06] the executive branch above the judicial branch he tried to intimidate a sitting u.s senator in spite of [1:15:12] first amendment protections by the way who's also a veteran so this sets a bad precedent for millions of [1:15:18] veterans to say that you don't have first amendment rights when when you leave the military you can't say [1:15:24] what you think and that they're going to call you back in to the military and put you in front of a [1:15:28] tribunal so in doing that hegseth raised above raised the military and the executive branch or tried to [1:15:35] above the judicial branch and above the legislative branch now the irony of it is he was attacking [1:15:42] senator mark kelly for saying you don't have to carry out illegal orders well that's the consequence [1:15:48] of this of hegseth ignoring senator kelly's advice is six of these articles of impeachment are for him [1:15:55] carrying out illegal orders and finally you can go back to yemen um where there was uh before i get to [1:16:03] yemen which is the last one let me talk about venezuela they they i feel sorry for the lawyers at the [1:16:10] white house they construct like somebody goes in there and says twist the law do whatever you can [1:16:17] we want to go in and kidnap a foreign leader and take their oil and and make us some legal construct [1:16:23] that would make this legal remember they had the doj involved pam bondi was involved in this in the [1:16:29] press conference for this war that they say wasn't a war although president trump i think it was just [1:16:34] yesterday said that hegseth won two wars iran and venezuela okay so if it's not so this is why i feel [1:16:43] sorry somewhat for the lawyers at the white house they come up with this tortured language so that maybe [1:16:48] hegseth won't get impeached and then the president goes out and uses all the terms the lawyers told him [1:16:54] not to do he commits candor he just tells the truth and he told the truth this is a war it was not a police [1:17:01] activity to interdict drugs or to stop a drug ring it was to kidnap a foreign leader so we could take [1:17:08] their oil and then he goes out like the next day the president does with hegseth standing there with [1:17:14] him saying well we did this to get the oil and now a bunch of our big corporations are going to get really [1:17:19] rich off of this oil so yay for for us and then finally on yemen we got a glimpse into something you [1:17:29] almost never get because the vice president the secretary of defense uh the cia director they're [1:17:38] all on a signal chat and they include a reporter oh my gosh wouldn't you wouldn't you love to be see [1:17:45] some of these signal chats um but here's one you get to see now and what do we find out that [1:17:51] unanimously everybody on that signal chat agreed there was no eminent including hegseth himself who [1:17:57] said they could pause at any time agreed there was no imminent threat that would justify the president [1:18:04] you know going in front of congress and taking action uh without an authorization of use military [1:18:10] force or declaration of war and the consequence of that was civilians killed and so um i think those [1:18:17] are the eight articles of impeachment as i just laid them out there and uh a few a few other things i want [1:18:23] to say in anticipated in anticipation of your questions an interesting fact of and an interesting [1:18:30] consequence of where we are in time in this lame duck session is um the articles of impeachment once [1:18:39] they leave the house they they survive into the next senate like every hr bill in here will die and [1:18:47] you'll have to reintroduce it but not these articles of impeachment if the senate doesn't deal with this [1:18:52] this in you know before the end of this senate they they're turning it over to a democrat senate [1:18:59] who can then have the trials and deal with it so my hope is that this will make it to the senate i [1:19:05] don't know if we have enough votes i have no idea i haven't spent time on the phone calling people [1:19:10] i'm doing this because it's the right thing to do everybody gets to take this vote i suspect there [1:19:16] there may be members of congress who want to put a little daylight between themselves in this war [1:19:21] or themselves in this administration at who survived their election not just what i call the retirement [1:19:27] caucus whose membership swelled on november 3rd i'm talking about the people who are coming back [1:19:32] next congress and then in two years they're going to have to answer for a war that's gotten even worse [1:19:39] and if the if god forbid the secretary of defense is still in charge of it they're going to own all of [1:19:45] his misfortune and misdeeds and so i would encourage my colleagues to read the eight articles of [1:19:51] impeachment if i'm wrong tell me where i'm wrong i would encourage the speaker not to try to dismiss this [1:19:59] with a you know a motion to table it or a motion to refer it to committee that's one thing i want to [1:20:05] prepare everybody for a motion to refer this to committee is a motion to kill this impeachment so they [1:20:12] may try to get out of an actual vote on the substance of this we should have a vote and a rigorous debate [1:20:18] on these eight articles of impeachment and with that i will take questions i will let [1:20:24] i was going to let one of my staff do all right could you put this in some sort of historical [1:20:28] context for us do you think pete headsett is the worst u.s defense secretary in history he wouldn't be [1:20:35] the only one impeached by the house um this happened in the 1800s and i think the the gentleman resigned [1:20:42] or something happened maybe he went to prison i don't know what happened but it never uh matriculated [1:20:48] to an issue in the senate so um it's not unprecedented let me let me let me take another one here [1:20:56] do you think you have to ask you about you and then you about yeah thank you congressman uh really [1:21:02] quickly there are rumors that libertarians are trying to recruit you for 2028 to play spoiler [1:21:08] will you commit to supporting the gop nominee in 2028 that's a different conversation [1:21:15] i went to iran to minab a few months ago and they reported on the terrible trauma and tragedy of the [1:21:20] families whose children were ripped apart by the tomahawk missiles and a lot of them said they thought [1:21:25] pete headsett was a war criminal they believe this was a war crime and that's been echoed by [1:21:29] the very respectable american experts on the law would you go that far would you say that he is [1:21:33] a war criminal off the back of that terrible tragedy there um i did not go that far in these articles you [1:21:39] won't find a reference to war crimes what i what i do say though is the because he's violated the [1:21:46] international norms of war and violated our own conventions of war he's put our own soldiers and [1:21:52] sailors at risk when you when you go back for a second kill on people who are clinging to wreckage [1:21:59] you're encouraging our adversaries to do the same that's why those laws those international laws are [1:22:04] on the books but i did not go that far but i will say that he has violated the norms of war [1:22:10] and it's to the disadvantage and the dishonor of our country and to the danger of our soldiers in [1:22:15] future conflicts well he's right about one thing i'm a defeated congress congressman uh i'm not [1:22:30] disgruntled and uh we'll see if the plan works i mean he should look i'm being polite here what is an [1:22:38] impeachment an impeachment is just firing somebody really you don't go to prison you don't go to jail [1:22:43] you're not you don't pay a fine okay when the democrats get in charge they are going to be very [1:22:49] vicious the one thing that i wasn't able to compel with my articles of impeachment and which is why [1:22:57] we don't want to refer it to a committee because they won't have hearings but the democrats are going [1:23:01] to have hearings they won't have just eight articles of impeachment i suspect if pete hegseth doesn't [1:23:06] leave and this is the answer to your question will it work i hope for his sake it does work because [1:23:13] the democrats are going to bring people in here who have served under him and with him give them [1:23:18] protection they'll be able to say what he's actually done the things that he has ignored the [1:23:23] things that he did that caused civilian casualties the way he's uh you know ignored the laws and then [1:23:29] there'll be a full robust trial over in the senate and it's not a certain thing that he would survive [1:23:35] the senate you know even though there's you know they don't have uh what would you call it an impeachment [1:23:40] proof majority in the senate the democrats don't you have republicans who are going to be compelled [1:23:46] once there's more testimony and more hearings and more trials and so it if if working is getting him [1:23:55] to leave a day earlier than he already otherwise would have i think it's probably worked [1:24:04] this guy's serious he doesn't let go of that coffee for nothing you said that hexeth was following [1:24:09] unlawful orders you said the president is culpable why then or did you consider bringing articles [1:24:16] against the president uh over the court i think the president needs to see one of this is a metaphor [1:24:24] one of his horses shot out from under him and then maybe he'll he will see things differently [1:24:30] i think politically it's an it's an impossible hurdle uh but also i think this is the better target [1:24:36] you know sometimes you apply the the uh the ordinance where the best target is and the best target is [1:24:44] pete hegg said what i what one of the things that i really want out of this is to litigate whether [1:24:51] congress has war powers or not like this is i've got republican colleagues who know i'm right on this [1:24:58] they're worried about the politics of it and um what we what i'm really trying to do here with some [1:25:04] of these articles is litigate three three provisions of the war powers resolution and have other have other [1:25:11] folks uh violated them as well yeah not not as blatantly or as egregiously as pete hegseth but [1:25:18] somebody's got to put their foot down and say are we going to follow the laws that are on the books are [1:25:22] we going to follow the constitution and the best way to do that is to have an impeachment against pete [1:25:28] hegseth i suspect honestly there may be democrats who would prefer when their person is in power to not [1:25:36] be constrained by this vote in their history where because you know let's imagine a scenario which is [1:25:43] not too hard to imagine after last week's shellacking where the democrats control all three levers the house [1:25:52] the senate and the white house i i suspect you know just like bill clinton did and barack obama i [1:25:58] suspect they're going to want to go in there and ignore congress and use these powers so this is the [1:26:03] right this is the right forum to have it in the right vote let me keep going in this way yeah good [1:26:09] i suspect they whipped it before the recess and sent us home early and maybe it was just because people [1:26:34] didn't want to take a vote that was closely associated with the iran war or with this administration [1:26:40] in advance of a tough election so but now i don't know if they're whipping it or not i mean if they [1:26:47] start to whip it it looks desperate i saw that the secretary has scheduled a press conference [1:26:53] for tomorrow if i if i saw that right of my way to deliver these articles i suspect they will let [1:27:01] the secretary give his rebuttal to these articles before they have the vote you see the leadership as [1:27:08] you i'm sure you know they can have the vote within two legislative days and it could take the form of [1:27:14] of a motion to table or a motion to refer to committee or they could vote on the substance but [1:27:19] in any of those scenarios they could do it we could have the vote tonight we could have it tomorrow we [1:27:24] could have it wednesday but i would encourage them to have a vote on the substance of it and i suspect [1:27:30] since we saw the secretary have scheduled his own press conference that they're going to let him [1:27:35] deliver a rebuttal and to that point i hope he addresses the eight articles and doesn't get up and [1:27:41] misquote the bible in quentin tarantino fashion and do some pull-ups and you know call everybody [1:27:48] fat and gay like for being for this impeachment like i may have just given you half his speech i [1:27:54] don't know but i would like to see him go through the eight articles of impeachment and just make the [1:28:00] argument from a podium you can use notes get the lawyers to help you tell us why you are not guilty of [1:28:08] each of these eight articles of impeachment i hope that's what he does and so that's my answer to your [1:28:13] question when do i suspect it's going to be i suspect it's not going to be tonight or tomorrow [1:28:17] before that uh before the secretary speaks let me let me keep going this way here because people are [1:28:28] dying and uh he's putting our own military at risk and i you know i didn't by the way i didn't wait [1:28:35] until after the election the speaker waited until after the election i wanted to have this vote 10 weeks ago [1:28:42] and so you know there's never a good time honestly um you could you know i i think the democrats would [1:28:51] do well to vote for this and it looks like they are going to vote for it um so that's a question for [1:28:58] them what are they going to do after they take the majority but i'll tell you why i'm not waiting until [1:29:03] next congress because i'm not here next congress [1:29:05] i don't know if it's going to pass the house or not i think i don't have a crystal ball you guys may [1:29:36] have a better idea than i do if it's going to pass the house or not what i want to see is a vote in [1:29:41] the senate i want to see them go on record they could dispose with it the way chuck schumer did with an [1:29:47] impeachment resolution i think against mayorkas where they don't really vote on the substance [1:29:53] they just try to dismiss it out of hand instead of getting into a trial and having you know a hearing [1:29:59] on it um but i as long as they have a vote over there i think it's good and and it it's not the way [1:30:08] i wanted i didn't want us to be in the minority in the house or the senate but we're still in the [1:30:12] majority they can still do the right thing let me take this discussion let me take this guys if you [1:30:43] follow my 14 year career i mean i i wrote the iran resolution the first one we voted on like this is [1:30:52] at my core this is something important to do i don't want to be sitting at home thinking about well [1:30:57] i should have done that and i didn't do it um because i think this needs to be litigated i'm not [1:31:04] interested i'm not interested in a position in the administration although it sounds like there [1:31:09] could be a lot of them opening up and you said that nobody is siding with you with me on the [1:31:15] republican side i suspect there are several who will i just haven't talked to them i'm not whipping it [1:31:21] it's not it's you know it's going to be everybody's conscience and then they'll have to live with that [1:31:26] vote and they're going to have to live with that vote two years from now if they're not part of the [1:31:30] retirement caucus and if they are part of the retirement caucus what do they have to lose [1:31:35] so i'll go i'll go this way i'll get you [1:31:51] well i heard a rumor that's already been promised to somebody else and you know that's what happens [1:31:57] usually those promises are made before the races happen not after the races happen so i don't think [1:32:04] that's going to happen you have reached out to anyone have any communication with the pentagon [1:32:20] about an investigation into that before you introduce the issue in your article and second [1:32:26] just wondering if you can address what we've heard from some republicans which is that this is very [1:32:31] personal to you that the secretary endorsed and campaigned with your primary opponent can you just [1:32:38] address whether or not this is personal number one it's not personal it to me at all and then the [1:32:46] question about the school war like who do they think bombed the school does the white house say [1:32:52] they think uh iran bombed their own school it's a false flag attack i mean obviously we we hit it [1:33:00] and you can determine what kind of missiles from the range and the and the kind of destruction there was [1:33:06] i don't think they're going to get out of that article of impeachment by saying oh we don't know who [1:33:11] bombed that school although i think the president tried that for a day or two yeah [1:33:19] the president has indicated that he's going to keep the headset in this position the secretary is [1:33:25] fighting this and the senate as you know very unlikely to convict of you if this does that the house so [1:33:30] would you acknowledge that this is really a symbolic move that you're employing here no it's not [1:33:36] symbolic it's not symbolic because i think a lot of people first of all read the eight articles it's [1:33:44] not a policy disagreement it's not it's not that i don't like the war and iran it's not that i don't [1:33:50] like his style these are nobody has attacked any of these articles yet nobody's gone in and said this [1:33:59] one's wrong or that one's wrong or this one's wrong or this one's poorly drafter that one's [1:34:03] legally wrong so it's not that and the other thing is the the practical effect of this is [1:34:11] where everybody's wondering when p hegseth is going to leave it's not a matter of and this is a question [1:34:18] that does need to be asked he's not doing a good job in addition to breaking the law and violating the [1:34:24] constitution he's not doing a good job you got members of the military who know that you got members [1:34:28] of the house armed services who know that so as i said before if this precipitates his departure i'm [1:34:36] i'm all with the white house don't give massey a win don't let this thing pass let him quit or have [1:34:41] him resign in the next day or two if he stays in power and the republicans reject this what message [1:34:47] do you think it sends to the american public after last week's election well there's 435 congressional [1:34:54] districts a lot of the incumbents aren't are going to be leaving but most of the incumbents are coming [1:35:01] back and those those incumbents have to answer to their people every one of them has to answer that [1:35:08] question i think it sends a dangerous message you've got the vice president the president virtually [1:35:14] everybody even the cheerleaders for the war are now acknowledging that they lost this election [1:35:20] because of the war and this is the best vote you can take right now to put some daylight between [1:35:26] yourself and the failed policy of this war in iran and the in the way that it's been uh handled and [1:35:33] all you know the other articles of impeachment are important too just to answer these constitutional [1:35:39] questions i mean the answer is obvious that's why nobody wants to debate them of the eight articles [1:35:45] of impeachment which one do you think has the most likelihood of prevailing uh i think i he he asked [1:35:54] okay sorry he asked of the eight articles of impeachment which ones he thinks have the most [1:35:59] chance of prevailing uh i think the one that's on its face clearly a violation of the law is the [1:36:06] concurrent resolution and so this is this is like when you have a trial there needs to be a trial on this [1:36:13] the senate needs to tell us do they think the that uh it's either 5b or 5c of the 1973 war powers [1:36:21] resolution do they think it's a bad law because if they do they need to take it off the books but [1:36:26] this is cut and dry they're in violation of uh of the provision that says a concurrent resolution [1:36:33] means that you have to stop and then the other one by the way these aren't necessarily in order of [1:36:38] importance but they are in order of i would your question was likelihood the other is the 60 day [1:36:45] time limit they've clearly gone beyond 60 days they're clearly no longer saying this isn't one [1:36:50] continuous war but their lawyers are still trying to say that behind the scenes and that needs to be [1:36:56] fleshed out i think that's obvious does anybody here think this war has gone on less than 60 days [1:37:03] no it's gone on more than 60 days and nobody unlike the provision with the concurrent resolution where [1:37:09] they say it's been obviated or i'm sorry it's it's been antiquated or by the chata versus ins the 60 day [1:37:17] provision is still there and nobody says it's unconstitutional and every single one of you here [1:37:22] knows it's been more than 60 days people back home know it's been more than 60 days so i would say on [1:37:28] their face those are the ones that you you could win by summary judgment if you had this in front of [1:37:35] a real courtroom okay i'll start back over here yeah i do i do have a message to the troops um this [1:37:52] secretary has used our troops to go seize oil for large corporations uh in america you shouldn't be [1:38:01] used like that you signed up to pledge your life for this country if need be and that obligation [1:38:10] shouldn't be diminished to be to stealing oil for big corporations uh i would also say that there's a [1:38:18] reason we have rules of engagement it's not just secretary hegseth says okay rules of engagement those [1:38:25] get in our way those are too hard i think most soldiers understand that this is when you get into a [1:38:32] war as ridiculous as it sounds that there should be laws of war when you kill each other there's a [1:38:37] reason for it if you ca if you capture the enemy you they shouldn't be summarily executed we i don't [1:38:43] want our own soldiers to be submitted to that so we shouldn't be engaging that kind of activity [1:38:49] ourselves and um that's you know and then finally my my other message to the soldiers is active duty [1:38:57] one day you're going to be retired uh hopefully you make it through with your lives intact do you [1:39:05] deserve a diminished first amendment protection like hegseth is is not just implied but said of [1:39:12] senator mark kelly that because he served in the military before now he can't say the same things that [1:39:19] everybody else can say because the military after you've done you know served your years and your [1:39:25] obligation to your country and now you're sitting at home they can come back you say something on [1:39:29] the internet and this notion that the military can grab you and pull you back in and put you in front [1:39:35] of a tribunal without real judges it's ridiculous so there are at least three ways in here where i'm [1:39:41] looking out for members of the military and we don't you know i also find it offensive that secretary hegseth [1:39:50] somewhere in his comments said that oh massey has impugned the service of these members no the [1:39:57] members aren't the problem it's their leader that is the problem and they deserve a better leader than [1:40:02] pete hegseth and so that's my message to the soldiers what about the commanders though do you [1:40:07] think let me get somebody else yeah your fellow senators your senators that are from andy bar is going [1:40:15] to be torn in in january ram paul has been supportive of your efforts so well he's been supportive of [1:40:21] ending the war in iran so far have you talked to either of them or to senator mcconnell's team [1:40:26] or senator mcconnell himself about this effort and where they stand on this issue of impeaching [1:40:32] i have not but if it were possible to have a conversation with mcconnell i would like to know [1:40:38] why he didn't vote to confirm hegseth so there are three senators like if you're going over and looking [1:40:43] at the senate i think it was collins and murkowski and mcconnell who did not vote for confirmation [1:40:51] so when you're looking at votes and could this pass the senate or not i think there are some votes [1:40:56] over there and possibly i haven't talked to senator paul about it he he did lead the charge on extra [1:41:02] judicial killings when obama undertook this with drones and so i would hope he still have the same [1:41:08] opinion i think he has also early on commented about the illegality of bombing these boats with [1:41:16] suspected drug traffickers in them none of it do you agree with the vice president that the iran war [1:41:31] was the defining reason why republicans lost last week are you talking to other colleagues in the [1:41:36] house similarly i think they've diagnosed one of about six reasons they got shellacked in this election [1:41:46] people are more opposed to the consequences of this war than they are this war i don't think [1:41:51] they're particularly worried about the civil rights of of people or the civilian casualties in iran they're [1:41:57] worried about the price of gasoline and diesel and in kentucky fertilizer for fields and then in the [1:42:03] supermarket and price of food those things have been driven up not just by this failed misguided war in [1:42:11] iran but by the big beautiful bill that was a mistake as i said here the night they made it over the [1:42:17] final hurdle i said we're not rearranging deck chairs on the titanic with the big beautiful bill [1:42:23] we're setting a course for the iceberg like we're intentionally doing things that we know will cause [1:42:28] inflation and higher interest rates so i don't think there's been a full accounting also that they [1:42:34] abandoned the maha segment of the coalition they you know i sat over here in the supreme court and [1:42:40] watched our department of justice argue that monsanto it's bare now but their product glyphosate [1:42:48] roundup should be immune from any even if it does cause cancer even if it does cause cancer they [1:42:55] should be immune that's our that was our own doj that was pam bondi was the attorney general when [1:43:01] when that case was being tried uh i suspect susie wiles had something to do with the president's [1:43:07] this is the accusation from collie means which i don't doubt at all that she was instrumental [1:43:12] uh it's somehow uh maybe mischaracterizing what he said but i'll just say it from as if i said it [1:43:17] myself that her lobbying firm represents them and so it's no mistake that the president gave a degree of [1:43:26] immunity through uh an executive order so he's he's alienated they've alienated the maha coalition doge got [1:43:34] run out of here on a rail the the democrats want to they still want to vilify republicans for using doge [1:43:40] using doge doge never really happened go look at the bottom line we're spending more money than [1:43:45] we did before doge and so i think elon musk found it was easier to land rockets backwards and put [1:43:52] internet on antarctica and get cars to drive themselves than it was to get anybody in this [1:43:57] these two chambers to cut a penny of spending and so these are the things these are the reasons they [1:44:03] lost the election it's not just the iran war this game um well he whipped the big beautiful bill so he [1:44:17] can't get away from that one of the things he can try to get away from is the iran war but that's going [1:44:23] to be harder and harder to do if this thing drags on uh when he served as a senator he and i talked [1:44:31] about stopping the war in ukraine and the the futility of that and how do you wind that down [1:44:38] so i do believe at his heart he's against these things i don't know if it's just a pop populous [1:44:44] notion or whatever and he sees which way the the uh the wind is blowing but i do have reason to [1:44:50] believe he wanted us out of ukraine uh back when he was a senator but at some point he has to he's [1:44:56] either with the the administration or not with the administration on this that's up for him to decide i [1:45:04] wouldn't we're doing one impeachment at a time here well we'd like to pass the next epstein bill [1:45:18] uh you know i stood here at this podium with survivors behind me and we got three million files [1:45:25] released i'd like to see that continue forward uh it's not i mean these are by the way these are [1:45:32] promises that this administration made that they would release these files for instance or that there [1:45:38] would be no new wars yet here we are frankly i'm running out of time they took two and a half weeks off the [1:45:44] clock in advance of the elections two weeks so i couldn't do the epstein stuff and one day so we [1:45:51] couldn't do the heps the hegseth if i can think of anything else to do i'll do it as long as i'm doing [1:45:59] the right thing somebody over here doing other things you want to make a comment about brian [1:46:06] cold jr in that case um i think he's innocent but let's keep this to one i think so i mean it's [1:46:19] just two democrats that we needed not not two republicans all right you said you didn't explicitly [1:46:25] lay out that the exact you didn't charge him of committing war crimes but you mentioned in your [1:46:29] resolution denying quarter which is a war crime you mentioned the double trap half strike which is [1:46:34] against geneva conventions and also is widely considered to be a war crime if the house votes [1:46:38] on this is that an acknowledgement that the department of defense under pete hegseth has [1:46:43] conducted or committed some degree of war crimes in line with high crimes and misdemeanor standards to [1:46:48] meet the requirement of impeachment no i don't think so and the senate would have to have a trial for [1:46:53] that but i'm not accusing him of war crimes does he have blood on his hands of course the civilians [1:47:01] because he's the one who you know rolled back the civilian targeting protections [1:47:07] um at the at the uh department of defense absolutely [1:47:22] i don't think so i don't know how you rally around eight articles of impeachment it's not one or two [1:47:29] it's it's eight times he's violated the constitution or the law and uh you know the president has got [1:47:36] away with a lot of things that nobody else can get away with and i don't think it's a i don't [1:47:44] whereas the president today probably wears those former impeachments as a badge of honor [1:47:49] i don't think hegseth gets to wear this that way it's not the way it'll be looked at in history [1:47:55] all right i'll take two more questions yeah you said that you've been whipping this together but [1:48:00] has there been an effort to whip this vote against you and where has the panic been within republicans [1:48:07] um i don't if there's a if there's an effort to whip it against me i haven't seen it so don't know [1:48:13] yeah you mentioned that if the senate does vote on this at least it's no but if it doesn't like what [1:48:21] does it accomplish well i mean a loss is a loss it's not a win if they shoot it down [1:48:32] but i think it's important to weigh in on this issue like it's you know a few of these articles [1:48:38] of impeachment what's at heart here is the balance of power between the executive branch and congress [1:48:45] and i think it's important for those senators to weigh in particularly on my first three articles of [1:48:51] impeachment which involve war powers where do those war powers reside or in venezuela do we think that any [1:48:58] executive branch can start their own war obviously that the constitution wasn't written for that and [1:49:06] so i would love to see those folks in the senate go on record even even if it's the wrong way people [1:49:14] in order for people to elect better people they need to see where these people stand and this is [1:49:20] one example you know some somebody asked you know why are you doing this now you know uh it's just [1:49:26] because it's the the end of your term the reality is the time for waiting around and being polite and [1:49:33] introducing bills uh and waiting six years to try to get them inside of some other bill that time is [1:49:41] over for me i am trying to force a vote here on this issue because i think it's at the at the heart and [1:49:47] soul of our republic who has the war powers when when they they say when one door closes another door [1:50:00] opens i found 10 doors that have opened and my hardest problem is deciding what to do next so [1:50:06] i don't i don't know what i would do i literally haven't ruled anything out except coming back here [1:50:13] all right yeah um it's not up to me i mean it's up to the president to decide and if i and if i named [1:50:33] a name they would probably never put that person in there so but i will name a name because i suspect [1:50:39] he doesn't want the job i think ronda santis would be great at it he's i don't think he would run into [1:50:45] the same problems that hegseth has ronda santis is is a jag law right like he understands the legality [1:50:52] and constitutional boundaries between the legislative and the executive branch so he'd be great at that [1:50:59] but i i'm only telling you his name because i think he probably doesn't want it [1:51:04] and because i would have just jinxed him by saying his name so anyways thank you all very much for covering [1:51:10] this see you