Robert Jimison, NYT (“The impeachment charges against Hegseth say he violated the Constitution.”):
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth could face an impeachment vote in the House as early as this week, as lawmakers return to Washington after an election in which voters delivered a sweeping rebuke of the Trump administration and the president’s handling of the war with Iran.
The effort is being led by Representative Thomas Massie, Republican of Kentucky, who on Monday called up a resolution accusing Mr. Hegseth of violating federal law and the Constitution, and abusing his authority on a number of fronts.
Democrats have signaled broad support for the effort, and several Republicans have expressed discontent with Mr. Hegseth, though the outcome remains uncertain in a narrowly divided House.
Jimison’s colleague, Helene Cooper, reports separately that the vote could come “possibly as early as this evening.” As I’ll detail later, POLITICO is reporting that outgoing Speaker Mike Johnson could force a delay until the new, Democratic-majority Congress is sworn in.
Back to Jimison:
Mr. Massie, who lost his primary in May to a challenger backed by President Trump, has introduced eight articles of impeachment against Mr. Hegseth, three of them focused on his conduct of the war with Iran.
It would note that it is both fitting and problematic that a Republican ousted by his own constituents at Trump’s urging is leading the effort. On the one hand, Massie no longer owes the administration the slightest bit of loyalty. On the other, it reeks of sour grapes.
The articles accuse the defense secretary of waging war without congressional authorization and continuing the military campaign after Congress voted to direct the president to terminate the conflict or seek authorization to continue it. The resolution also accuses Mr. Hegseth of violating deadlines under the War Powers Resolution, which requires the withdrawal of American forces from unauthorized hostilities after 60 days, with a possible 30-day extension.
The remaining charges accuse Mr. Hegseth of carrying out unlawful military strikes against suspected drug traffickers; unlawfully capturing Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro; conducting unauthorized military operations in Yemen; disregarding laws intended to minimize civilian casualties; and abusing his power by retaliating against Senator Mark Kelly for protected speech.
As a Department employee, it would be both improper and unwise for me to opine one way or the other on the merits of the charges. But I would note that the Constitutional and statutory prohibitions for the two most serious of these charges fall on the President, not the Defense Secretary. The Kelly saga is arguably a different matter, but certainly not something that would alone rise to the level of impeachment.
It is up to Speaker Mike Johnson to decide whether the chamber will vote on each of the eight articles or if they will be considered as a package.
Or if a vote will be scheduled at all, perhaps?
The Constitution lays out the process for Congress to impeach and remove presidents, judges and other federal civil officers, including cabinet secretaries.
The first step is in the House, which considers articles of impeachment alleging treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. A simple majority is required to approve any article. Impeachment amounts to a formal accusation by Congress, which is then sent to the Senate for a trial to determine whether the official should be convicted and removed from office.
House rules allow any member to propose impeachment articles and require that the body consider them within two legislative days. Congressional leaders — in this case Republicans — have no power to block a vote, but they can try to head off the impeachment by either moving to send the charges to a committee, delaying final action, or to table them, which would effectively kill the effort.
For his part, Johnson is noncommittal.
POLITICO (“The House may impeach Hegseth — but Mike Johnson could force it into the next Congress“):
The ultimate decision on that question comes down to Speaker Mike Johnson, who could simply refuse to send the articles to the Senate before the current Congress expires — kicking the matter to the next one, when both chambers will be under Democratic control.
“I’m not going to talk about that right now,” Johnson said Monday when asked if he would commit to sending Hegseth impeachment articles to the Senate, instead predicting that the articles — being pushed by GOP Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky with nearly unanimous Democratic support — would fail on the House floor.
“We’re going to follow the rules,” the Louisiana Republican said, adding that he had not yet discussed holding the articles should they pass the House.
The tactic of withholding articles of impeachment from the Senate was deployed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi in 2019, when she took the unprecedented step of waiting a month after the House impeached Donald Trump to send the articles to the Senate for a trial.
Pelosi (D-Calif.) in her delay sought to extract concessions from Senate Republicans about how Trump’s trial would be run. And her strategy highlighted the extent to which there are few rules and precedents governing the House’s tactical decisions on impeachment.
Johnson may have even more of a reason than Pelosi did to withhold the articles: A Hegseth impeachment would be the first time in history an executive branch official was impeached on votes derived almost entirely from the House minority. Yet Johnson would be tasked with naming the “impeachment managers” — essentially Hegseth’s prosecutors — who would try the case in the Senate. A speaker has not, at least in modern history, appointed impeachment managers opposed to the underlying effort.
Hegseth’s impeachment would also be unusual because the House didn’t investigate him or establish a factual record for the Senate to consider at trial.
Transmitting the articles and naming impeachment managers would also trigger automatic action in the Senate, cutting into the GOP-led chamber’s limited floor time ahead of the Democratic takeover in January.
Regardless (back to Jimison),
Democrats are widely expected to support impeaching Mr. Hegseth, and Representative Hakeem Jeffries, the minority leader, declared on Sunday that he was a “hard yes.” With Republicans holding a razor-thin majority, as few as three Republican defections or a few absences could be enough to put the resolution over the top.
Apart from Mr. Massie, several Republicans have expressed frustration with the secretary without committing to impeachment. Representative French Hill, Republican of Arkansas, said Sunday that he wanted to hear the arguments but cautioned that poor performance alone did not necessarily constitute an impeachable offense.
“I don’t know if we have enough votes,” Mr. Massie told reporters on Monday. “I’m doing this because it’s the right thing to do.”
The House, of course, is the easy part. Democrats will have a huge majority come January 3.
Beyond the political calculations, many lawmakers are considering whether policy decisions ordered by the president warrant impeachment. When House Republicans impeached Alejandro Mayorkas, who served as the homeland security secretary under President Joseph R. Biden Jr., over his handling of immigration enforcement, Democrats opposed the charges, arguing that policy choices did not constitute impeachable offenses. The Republican-led House impeached Mr. Mayorkas, but the Senate dismissed the charges.
Honestly, I can see no justification for impeaching the Defense Secretary for carrying out policies, even if he enthusiastically championed them, that were ultimately approved by the Commander-in-Chief without also impeaching the Decider.
