Rep. Thomas Massie took to the House floor this week to read out articles of impeachment against Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, even though voters in Kentucky’s 4th District already showed Massie the door in the primary.
That was a good day.
The legal community isn’t buying the lame-duck performance. Attorneys are lining up to note that Massie’s case rests on the idea that Congress can issue binding orders the Supreme Court has already said it has no power to impose on the executive branch, which makes the entire effort look more like political theater than a serious legal action.
Hey, we're definitely not experts on any of this BUT it sure sounds like Massie really stepped in it this time.
From political analyst and attorney Mehek Cooke to a retired military lawyer and international law professor who methodically dismantled all eight articles as unconvincing and constitutionally baseless, the growing pile-on suggests Hegseth isn’t the one whose job is in danger. Massie already is.
As an attorney my advice to @RepThomasMassie: @SecWar isn’t going anywhere. YOU are. SCOTUS rejected Congress bypassing the President to issue binding orders. You can’t impeach Hegseth for defying an order Congress lacked power to issue. Your articles lack legal foundation.
— Mehek Cooke🇺🇸 (@MehekCooke) November 9, 2026
Articles lack legal foundation. Huh, that can't be good.
Hey Rep Massie. International law prof & retired military lawyer here. I read the articles of impeachment you filed against @SecWar today. And it's clear you don't have a clue what you're talking about. For everyone else, read on for a detailed (though not exhaustive) analysis explaining why the allegations presented in these articles are unconvincing as a matter of law. In case you're not familiar, the Constitution establishes the causes & procedures for impeachment. Very briefly, the House of Representatives has sole power of impeachment (Art. I, Sec. 2) & must adopt articles of impeachment by a simple majority of members present for the vote. If that occurs, the Senate then has sole power to try all impeachments (Art. I, Sec. 3) & a conviction requires an affirmative vote by 2/3 of members present for the vote. Finally, 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). The focus for present purposes is on the last provision. That is, Massie must demonstrate in his articles - and a majority of the House must agree - that the allegations involving Sec. Hegseth amount to "other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." That will be the focus of this analysis, since none of the 8 articles so qualify. The critical analysis below addresses each of the 8 articles of impeachment. Because the full document is just over 33 pages long & the current platform is an @X post, this analysis won't necessarily be comprehensive in relation any of the 8 articles. Even so, treatment of each one will be detailed enough to at least hit the most important points. Also, it is worth noting that, as a whole, the 8 articles of impeachment merely rehash many of the same complaints & criticisms that have been directed at SECWAR over the last couple years. This means I have addressed many of the individual criticisms along the way as well. For those articles, I'll give an overview of the critical analysis & provide a link to an earlier post for additional reading. One more point before diving in - some of the articles are fundamentally flawed for the same reasons because they involve the same topics (particularly the first 3). For those, I'll consider them together while also addressing each of the individual accusations as part of the overall analysis of the group. With those introductory points in mind, let's carry on to (briefly) analyze each of the 8 articles of impeachment. (For reference, the full articles of impeachment, as filed, are available here: https://t.co/qG0cUWupFh) - 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:: Article 1 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 2 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 3 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. This is a topic I've addressed fairly comprehensively before, so I won't do so here. The short explanation, though, regarding why the WPR has always been unconstitutional is that it purports to expand Congress's authority to declare war (Art. I, Sec. 8) to include all situations of "hostilities." The problem with THAT is that not all "hostilities" amount to "war." And just because Congress has authority to DECLARE "war" doesn't mean it can prohibit the executive from exercising Art. II, Sec. 2 commander-in-chief authority to order @DeptofWar troops to engage in "hostilities". (for additional reading on this topic, see here: https://t.co/KS6wUsp5eg) Of course, this isn't JUST my analysis. In fact, every @POTUS since the WPR was adopted in 1973 has determined that resolution is unconstitutional (pic 1), essentially for the reason I outlined above. Likewise, historical practice supports the executive's (and my) assessment. As a separate Congressional Research Service report indicates, "there have been hundreds of instances" since 1798 "when the United States has used its Armed Forces in situations of military conflict or potential conflict or for other than normal peacetime purposes." Of these HUNDREDS of instances, there have ONLY been 11 formal declarations of war, and these "encompassed five separate wars" (pic 2) (pic 3 also shows a sampling of these from 1798 to 1825, only one of which - the War of 1812 - involved a formal declaration of war). So, either ALL of these HUNDREDS of examples of "hostilities" that weren't "authorized" by a formal declaration of war were ALSO illegal, OR the War Powers Resolution of 1973 - which purports to expand Congress's authority to "declare war" to cover ALL "hostilities" as well - is unconstitutional. I don't know about you, but that seems to be fairly adequate evidence indicating that the WPR is, in fact, unconstitutional. And if it IS (which, it is), then it isn't capable of establishing binding obligations with which the executive MUST comply. And if THAT is the case (which, it also is), then Rep Massie's claim that SECWAR Hegseth committed "other Crimes and Misdemeanors" by failing to comply with various (nonexistent) obligations is, in a word, bogus. - 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." Tbh nearly every line of this article misrepresents various aspects of international AND domestic law in such an egregious manner that I'm tempted to do a deep-dive on just Article IV. Maybe there will be an opportunity to do so at some point in the future. For now, I'll just focus on the core of this allegation: that SECWAR Hegseth failed to comply with legal "obligations" involving civilian harm mitigation & reduction (CHMR). This is a topic I have previously addressed in more detail here: https://t.co/8G2eaBk4Lm The MAIN point to address here 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 CiC authority since they don't involve making rules for the armed forces (that authority is exercised by adopting the Uniform Code of Military Justice ... more about the UCMJ below). There are SO many other deficiencies in Article IV that demonstrate why the CMHR initiative has been flawed since @SecDefAustin & @JoeBiden initially implemented the program & that fundamentally misrepresent #LOAC obligations + command responsibility & so on. For present purposes, though, Art. IV fails to state a "high Crime or Misdemeanor" primarily because SEC WAR Hegseth has NO "obligation" to implement "laws and directives mandated" BY CONGRESS "for the protection of civilians during the commission of armed conflict" since CONGRESS exceeded its Art. I authority - at the expense of legitimate Art. II CiC authority - by purporting to "mandate" executive compliance in the first place. - Article V. 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." This claim is centered on the campaign of attacks directed against suspected narcoterrorists in international waters. Once again, this is a topic I've covered at length before (for example, here: https://t.co/qANP4g2tiB). The MAIN problem here (out of many) is the assertion that: "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, 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." Of course, the "without congressional authorization" element returns us to the analysis from the WPR articles involving the concurrent constitutional powers to "declare war" (Congress) AND engage in "hostilities" (POTUS). Even so, the assertion that suspected narcoterrorists operating drug boats on the High Seas are MERELY "suspected of criminal conduct" is a gross misrepresentation of international law involving the resort to force (jus ad bellum) & domestic implementation thereof. See, this article explicitly acknowledges that an interagency task force developed a classified memo that presented "a legal basis for such strikes" by determining that the "United States is engaged in a noninternational armed conflict (NIAC) with 24 Latin American Designated Terrorist Organizations." Whether one disagrees with this determination or not, the EXECUTIVE BRANCH HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DO SO. And when it DID determine the existence of a noninternational armed conflict against drug cartels, by definition the adversary was no longer merely "suspected of criminal conduct." Yes, trafficking narcotics IS criminal conduct. But saying it is ONLY criminal conduct would be like claiming al-Qaeda operatives are "only" criminals since they're engaged in activity that is against the law. A drug dealer at home is a criminal. A narcotics trafficker on the High Seas that ISN'T part of a group the government has determined to be an adversarial belligerent in a (noninternational) armed conflict is ALSO a criminal. But 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." Yet again, this is a subject I've covered in more detail previously (see, for example, here: https://t.co/Mzx3PorAJv). For now, I'll just reiterate that @SenMarkKelly didn't MERELY say, "Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders." Of course, if that' ALL he had said, there probably wouldn't be any issue. After all, he IS right - servicemembers can, indeed must, refuse to comply with unlawful orders. The problem is, Sen Kelly AND the rest of the "Seditious 6" didn't just stop at that "reminder." 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 (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 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. That is, pursuant to Art. 2 of the UCMJ, retired servicemembers "who are entitled to pay" as Sen Kelly is, remain subject to the Code (pic 4). So reasonable views may certainly differ whether SECWAR Hegseth's move to reinstate Sen (ret Cpt) Kelly to face court-martial was ADVISABLE. But it certainly was NOT a "high Crime or Misdemeanor" if existing law permitted such a move. If Rep Massie doesn't like it, maybe he should introduce a motion to change THAT provision of the UCMJ - rather than wasting everyone's time with these frivolous articles of impeachment. 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." No need for present purposes to address the "constitutional allocation of war powers" claim - though it is rather amusing that THIS article asserts the Maduro operation was "of a nature and magnitude rising to the level of constitutional war" yet the counter-narcoterrorist boat strikes were ... not (selective outrage much?). And, yes, this is also a topic I've addressed at length previously (see, for example, here: https://t.co/up15zRPdp3). 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 (er ... "kidnapped" 🤣) him. For confirmation, this is what @SecRubio 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." (https://t.co/dspH13AhEO) So this operation wasn't a "kidnapping" as the article claims, nor was it an "act of war against a sovereign country." Maduro wasn't the head of state & the operation didn't constitute "international relations" in accordance with the UN Charter (as I have previously analyzed at the X post presented above). As such, once again, ordering & directing this operation doesn't constitute a "high Crime or Misdemeanor." 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." Since the goal here is to focus on the main points rather than also addressing the less central - though still conspicuous - deficiencies inherent in the articles, I'll refrain from getting into the weeds on some of the other points. The main point here, though, as it is with Articles I, II & III, is that the WPR 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". ____ Ok, that's it - at least for the main points - in relation to all 8 articles of impeachment. Each of the articles includes an assertion that SECWAR Hegseth "will remain a threat to the Constitution if allowed to remain in office," or words to that effect. In reality, the articles of impeachment are a sham - from beginning to end. And it is Rep Massie, not Sec Hegseth, who IS a clear & present threat to the Constitution - for abusing the impeachment powers vested in Congress by distorting international AND domestic law to create the false appearance that Hegseth's conduct amounts to "high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Thankfully, Rep Massie won't be allowed to remain in office himself since he got crushed in the primary in the great state of Kentucky. Even so, any member of Congress who supports or votes in favor of Massie's misguided articles of impeachment is ALSO "a threat to the Constitution" - and for the same reason. As such, any member who DOES support or vote for these articles should not be allowed to remain in office - and it will be up to their constituents to watch closely & hold them to account, where it counts, at the next election. #ImpeachmentHoax #GoHomeMassie
— Dr. Brian L. Cox (@BrianCox_RLTW) November 10, 2026
Holy COW!
Even Turley got in on the dragging:
I am reviewing the eight articles on the impeachment of Sec. Pete Hegseth. In my view, six of the eight articles should be nonstarters, including the Iranian articles. Presidents, including Clinton, Obama, and Biden, have asserted the authority to commence such operations...
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) November 10, 2026
Nonstarters.
Good luck with that, Massie.
============================================================
Related:
Marco Rubio SCHOOLS Fake-News Journo SO HARD on Iran You ALMOST Feel Sorry for Him... Almost (WATCH)
Who's Laughing NOW, Uber-Hag? Jennifer Welch Is BIG MAD at Conservatives for 'Bullying Her Sponsors'
They’re GONNA BLOW! Sarah Huckabee Sanders Takes NO PRISONERS on 'The View' and It's GLORIOUS -WATCH
It's ON! Pete Hegseth Just ENDED Lamest of Lame Ducks Thomas Massie Over Impeachment and DAAAMN SON
IWF EXPOSES: Schools in Red-Blue States Pushing Gender Secrets on Kids Behind Parents’ Backs -Thread
============================================================