In just the latest example of how Democrats and others suffering from TDS try to criminalize policy disagreements and make the process the punishment, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY-4), a former Republican but now a member of the controlled opposition, has filed article of impeachment against Secretary of War Pete Hegseth.
Massie, who was defeated in the 2026 primary, introduced the articles of impeachment against Hegseth in the House on Nov. 9, accusing the Secretary of War of committing “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Yesterday, the House voted 211–204 against advancing the impeachment resolution. Following the vote, the impeachment resolution was referred to committee.
Although we’ve been over this ground exhaustively during the three bogus impeachments Democrats brought against President Trump, the how and why of impeachment bears a quick review.
Briefly, the Constitution establishes the causes and procedures for impeachment. The House of Representatives has sole power of impeachment (Art. I, Sec. 2) and must adopt articles of impeachment by a simple majority of members present for the vote.
The Constitution also establishes that civil officers (including, in this case, SECWAR) "shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" (Art. II, Sec. 2).
If the House votes to impeach once Democrats take control (a foregone conclusion given what Democrats have been saying), the Senate then has sole power to try all impeachments (Art. I, Sec. 3).
A conviction and removal from office requires an affirmative vote by 2/3 of members present for the vote.
What exactly are the alleged “other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" for which Secretary Hegseth is being impeached?
International law professor and retired military lawyer Dr. Brian L. Cox outlined the claims against Secretary Hegseth in a lengthy post to X and noted the eight articles of impeachment merely rehash many of the same complaints and criticisms that have been directed at SECWAR over the last couple years.
(For reference, the full articles of impeachment, as filed, are available here: https://massie.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hegseth_articles_of_impeachment.pdf)
As Prof. Cox explained in a lengthy post to X:
Articles I, II & III. The first 3 out of 8 Articles deal with the so-called "War Powers Resolution" adopted, over Pres Nixon's veto, in 1973. Because the WPR has been unconstitutional from the outset, each of these allegations fails to state a "high Crime or Misdemeanor" for the same reason.
Specifically, wrote Prof. Cox:
Article I claims, citing 50 U.S.C. §1541(c): "Secretary Hegseth knowingly executed and implemented unlawful orders to initiate war against a foreign nation notwithstanding the absence of congressional authorization, an attack upon the United States giving rise to the national emergency contemplated by law, or an imminent threat requiring immediate defensive action, thereby substituting unlawful executive action for the constitutional and statutory judgment of Congress."
Article II claims, citing 50 U.S.C. § 1544(c): "Secretary Hegseth knowingly executed and sustained unlawful orders that treated the Executive Branch as possessing authority to determine when war may be commenced, how long it may be sustained, and whether Congress’ direction to terminate hostilities must be obeyed. By implementing those orders, he effectuated, in practice, the unilateral continuation of military operations against Iran despite Congress’ exclusive constitutional authority to declare war and despite Congress’ formal action directing the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities."
Article III claims, citing 50 U.S.C. § 1544(b): "Secretary Hegseth continued to direct, authorize, and sustain the use of United States Armed Forces in hostilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran after the expiration of every potentially applicable statutory period." The foundational flaw with each of these allegations is that they're based on "obligations" the executive branch - including SECWAR Hegseth - is not ACTUALLY required to recognize or implement. And that's because the War Powers Resolution was unconstitutional when it was initially adopted in 1973 & it remains unconstitutional - for the same reasons - still today.
Article IV. The basis for the next article is a claim that: "Secretary Hegseth willfully and systemically refused to comply with laws and directives mandated for the protection of civilians during the commission of armed conflict, chilled and rendered ineffective such components to prevent and mitigate harm to civilians, and therefore, foreseeably effected the death and injury of over 200 civilians [referring to the attack reportedly directed against an elementary school in Minab, Iran], to the manifest injury of the United States." According to Prof. Cox, nearly every line of this article misrepresents various aspects of international AND domestic law.
The core of this allegation is that SECWAR Hegseth failed to comply with legal "obligations" involving civilian harm mitigation and reduction (CHMR).
The MAIN point to address here, according to Prof. Cox is that Congress doesn't possess the constitutional authority to FORCE DoW to implement specific CHMR practices. Congress can appropriate funds for such practices (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 12).
And Congress can "make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces" (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 14).
But POTUS is appointed as commander-in-chief of the military (Art. II, Sec. 2, Cl. 1). And practices related to civilian harm mitigation & reduction are strictly within the purview of Commander in Chief authority since they don't involve making rules for the armed forces (that authority is exercised by adopting the Uniform Code of Military Justice).
Article V. This claim is centered on the campaign of attacks directed against suspected narcoterrorists in international waters.
The essential basis for the next allegation is: "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, 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."
As Prof. Cox noted, a narcotrafficker on the High Seas that IS part of a group the government has determined to be an adversarial belligerent is a criminal AND a civilian taking direct part in hostilities (DPH). And what do we do with civilians DPH? Sure, we can detain them - but we can ALSO make them the object of attack pursuant to LOAC. That's what DoW did, that's what SECWAR Hegseth directed, and none of it constitutes a "high Crime or Misdemeanor.”
Article VI. The crux of the allegation here is: Using the powers of his office, 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’ constitutional authority to oversee the Executive Branch, grossly expand Article II 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 upon their First Amendment freedoms."
The problem is, Sen Kelly AND the rest of the "Seditious 6" didn't just stop at reminding service members they were not obligated to follow illegal orders. What Article VI fails to mention is that Kelly (and the rest) ALSO repeatedly claimed actual orders provided by SECWAR Hegseth were illegal.
First of all, they were all full of shit as Prof. Cox so colorfully put it (see above, in particular, related to narcoterrorist ops). Even so, this messaging crusade of the Seditious 6 was essentially an effort to substitute their OWN judgment regarding what constitutes "lawful" orders for that of the duly appointed Secretary of War.
And Prof. Cox notes, although this article condemns the move by SECWAR Hegseth to recall Sen Kelly to active duty as an abuse of power that would set "a precedent that would chill the protected speech of millions of retired United States service members and inflict irreparable harm upon their First Amendment freedoms," Hegseth was merely exercising EXISTING STATUTORY AUTHORITY established in the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Article VII. The essence of this claim is that SECWAR Hegseth used Dept of War "to carry out an unprecedented military operation—code-named ABSOLUTE RESOLVE—to capture and kidnap President Nicolás Maduro, the leader of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, and his wife, Cilia Flores, from Venezuela—an act of war against a sovereign country executed under the guise of narcotics law enforcement, though in actuality intended to assert U.S. control over Venezuela’s oil reserves." In doing so, according to this article, "Secretary Hegseth abused the powers of the Department of Defense, violated the laws and treaty obligations of the United States, and subordinated the constitutional allocation of war powers to Executive objectives neither authorized nor approved by Congress."
The MOST important point to keep in mind in relation to this allegation is that Maduro wasn't recognized as the head of state at the time of the raid that captured or "kidnapped" him.
For confirmation, this is what Secretary of State Marco Rubio said after the operation: "Maduro is NOT the President of Venezuela and his regime is NOT the legitimate government. Maduro is the head of the Cartel de Los Soles, a narco-terror organization which has taken possession of a country. And he is under indictment for pushing drugs into the United States."
So, that operation wasn't a "kidnapping" as the article claims, said Prof. Cox, nor was it an "act of war against a sovereign country."
Article VIII. The primary allegation here is: "Secretary Hegseth initiated and directed" hostilities in Yemen "in the absence of any of the predicates required in section 2(c) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 for the President to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities."
The main point here, notes Prof. Cox, as it is with Articles I, II & III, is that the War Powers Resolution has been unconstitutional from the start. If it's unconstitutional from the start (which, it still is), then it can't establish binding obligations. And if it can't establish binding obligations (which, it still can't), then "violating" its provisions isn't a legitimate legal basis for claiming "high Crimes and Misdemeanors".
Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz told Newsmax on Tuesday that allegations raised by Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., do not come close to meeting the constitutional standard for removing a Cabinet official.
Dershowitz told "Wake Up America" that he does not expect lawmakers to successfully remove Hegseth from office — even if the House proceeds with impeachment — and suggested the effort may not advance to a Senate trial.
Prof. Dershowitz said impeachment must be reserved for constitutionally recognized grounds — including treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors. Dershowitz accused Massie of abusing the Constitution and the impeachment process by pursuing allegations that, in his view, fail to satisfy the constitutional requirements for impeachment.
"I would be honored to help defend him because these are not impeachable offenses," Dershowitz said, offering his legal assistance to Hegseth if proceedings move forward.
Dershowitz said he had already prepared and delivered a lengthy Senate defense outlining why disagreements over policy cannot serve as grounds for impeachment. He said Hegseth would be entitled to use those arguments in his defense.
The legal scholar also sharply criticized Massie, saying, "This is just his last effort to try to get a little publicity before he goes into the dusk and the darkness and is forgotten by history."
We agree with Professors Cox and Dershowitz and think our friend Kurt Schlichter had it right in this post to X.
