LIVE: Rep. Thomas Massie Discusses Articles of Impeachment Against War Secretary Pete Hegseth

Well, we've got six minutes, but it looks like there's enough people here to have a press conference. So we'll go ahead and start. Won't keep you waiting in this chilly air. Thank you. There are eight articles of impeachment that I've just introduced. I'll be glad to take your questions on it. The one thing that I want to point out here is a lot of a lot of people are saying, well, I think Peter Hegseth is effective. He's he's good at his job. And so I don't want to vote for these articles of impeachment. Well, the reality is we're not indicting him for being bad at his job. In fact, he was very effective at killing school children in Iran. He was very effective at extrajudicial killings. There's no argument in these impeachment articles that he's ineffective. The argument here is that he's broken laws and he's violated the Constitution. And so that's the question put in front of my colleagues. Now, I understand that some of them may want to vote for this because they just want to see Hegseth gone. I'll welcome their vote if that's the reason and they choose not to read the articles of impeachment. But I would encourage people to take them very seriously. The first three articles of impeachment are centered on the 1973 War Powers Resolution. And the White House legal counsel has tried to go around these things. I'm sure they've advised the president and the vice president and even the secretary of defense not to use the word war. And you see their tortured use of the English language in the early days of this. They tried to not call it a war. But ultimately, the president calls it a war every day. He's tired of the semantics. But what he's admitting to is... That puts them in violation of 1973 War Powers Resolution. They didn't meet the requirements to take action without Congress. That's the first article of impeachment. The second article of impeachment is that there was a concurrent resolution of Congress. There's no argument here. If this were in a courtroom, we wouldn't need witnesses. We wouldn't need to provide evidence. Both sides acknowledge that there was a concurrent resolution passed by the House and the Senate. And that's the prescription in the 1973 War Powers Act to stop a war or unauthorized activity by the president if that's what Congress wants to do. Well, that's what we did, and they didn't stop. So how do you litigate this? In reality, Speaker Johnson should bring a lawsuit against the executive branch. What I believe the executive branch will tell you is we know that's a law in the books, and we know we're violating it, but we don't like that law. We believe it's unconstitutional in light of Chadha versus INS, which actually had very little to do with the War Powers Resolution. Congress could have reconvened in light of that Supreme Court decision, which was on legislative vetoes, and they could have struck down this law, but they didn't. The law is on the books. Pete Hegseth is obligated to follow the laws on the books, not the laws that he wants to follow. And so there's a problem there. Now, for the question of do they even acknowledge the 1973 War Powers Act and that it's a law that's on the books, well, they absolutely do, because another provision is . . . It has to do with my third article of impeachment, which it says, if the president and the secretary of defense engage in some kind of unlawful or unauthorized military activity, which would have to meet the predicates in the 1973 War Powers Act, and they don't, but let's say they did meet the predicates in the 1973 War Powers Act, and they engaged in this unauthorized activity, they've got exactly 60 days to get authorization from Congress. And if Congress doesn't do anything, they have to stop. Now, they can ask for a 30-day extension, which they never did, and the 30-day extension only applies if you need 30 more days to get back out of the country safely with your military. Well, what is their legal argument here? Well, on day 61, they announced the war was over. They didn't need congressional authorization. The war is over, nothing to see here. But then they commenced within a couple of weeks the war again. The war was never over. There was never a legitimate stop to the war. And even the president himself acknowledges this is one continuous war. Yet the legal beagles at the White House are saying when they send letters to Congress that every time they commence another attack in Iran, they're effectively starting another military action that's unrelated to the war that's already going on. Because if they did acknowledge that and didn't have this shaky legal scaffolding, then they would have to acknowledge that they're violating the law. So that's the third article of impeachment. Thank So this gets me to the fourth one. Some of you may ask, Congressman Massie, why didn't you impeach President Trump? Well, it looks like a lot of this has to do with things you that the president directed Hegseth to do. Well, uh... very Two of these articles of impeachment belong to Hegseth himself. It is true that the president is culpable much. by asking Hegseth to carry out these orders, Thank you. but Hegseth should not carry out illegal orders, and that's why we're impeaching him. But one of the articles that Hegseth took upon himself to create, articles of impeachment, He basically took a part. The function inside of the Department of Defense that makes sure they're not going to strike civilians and the predictable and absolute result of that was they struck this, all these school kids on the first day of the war. Now there's something called the fog of war. Maybe, you know, you're in a battle and you don't have time to pay a lot of attention and you're shooting wherever you got to shoot. There's no fog of war on the first day. You've had months to identify these targets and pick them, yet they pick a school building on a school day with school kids in it and then struck it again and then struck it again. So that is the foreseeable and obvious and unfortunate consequence of something Pete Hegseth did himself at the Department of Defense. Now you've also got the extrajudicial killings in the Pacific and the Caribbean. They're trying to say those are police actions. Not only are they striking people without identifying them, they don't know who all those people are in the boat, they're going back and killing all the survivors. This puts our own military in danger in any kind of future military engagement because what will happen is we're encouraging others not to give our soldiers quarter, not to rescue our shipwrecked sailors if that should happen to our military men and women. Perhaps the most ironic article of impeachment in here is the one where he, Hegseth, abused his powers to go after Senator Mark Kelly. He tried to put the military and the executive branch above the judicial branch. He tried to intimidate a sitting U.S. Senator in spite of First Amendment protections. By the way, who's also a veteran. So this sets a bad precedent for millions of veterans to say that you don't have First Amendment rights when you leave the military. You can't say what you think, and that they're going to call you back in to the military and put you in front of a tribunal. So in doing that, Hegseth raised the military and the executive branch, or tried to, above the judicial branch and above the legislative branch. Now, the irony of it is he was attacking Senator Mark Kelly. For saying you don't have to carry out illegal orders. Well, that's the consequence of this, of Hegseth ignoring Senator Kelly's advice. Six of these articles of impeachment are for him carrying out illegal orders. And finally, you can go back to Yemen, where there was, before I get to Yemen, which is the last one, let me talk about Venezuela. They... I feel sorry for the lawyers at the White House. They construct, like somebody goes in there and says, Twist the law. Do whatever you can. We want to go in and kidnap a foreign leader and take their oil and make us some legal construct that would make this legal. Remember, they had the DOJ involved. Pam Bondi was involved in this, in the press conference for this war that they say wasn't a war. Although President Trump, I think it was just yesterday, said that Hegseth won two wars, Iran and Venezuela. So this is why I feel sorry somewhat for the lawyers at the White House. They come up with this tortured language so that maybe Hegseth won't get impeached. And then the president goes out and uses all the terms the lawyers told him not to do. He commits candor. He just tells the truth. And he told the truth. This is a war. This is not a police activity to interdict drugs or to stop a drug ring. It was to kidnap a foreign leader so we could take their oil. And then he goes out like the next day, the president does with Hegseth standing there with him saying, well, we did this to get the oil. And now a bunch of our big corporations are going to get really rich off of this oil. So yay for for us. And then finally on Yemen. We got a glimpse into something you almost never get because the vice president, the secretary of defense, the CIA director, they're all on a signal chat and they include a reporter. Oh, my gosh. Wouldn't you love to see some of these signal chats? But here's one you get to see now. And what do we find out? You nailed it. Unanimously, everybody on that signal chat agreed there was no imminent, including Hegseth himself, who said they could pause at any time, agreed there was no imminent threat. That would justify the president, you know, going in front of Congress and taking action without an authorization of use of military force or declaration of war. And the consequence of that was civilians killed. And so I think those are the eight articles of impeachment as I just laid them out there. And a few other things I want to say in anticipation of your questions. An interesting fact and an interesting consequence of where we are in time in this lame duck session is the articles of impeachment, once they leave the House, They survived into the next Senate. Like every HR bill in here will die and you'll have to reintroduce it, but not these articles of impeachment. If the Senate doesn't deal with this before the end of this Senate, they're turning it over to a Democrat Senate who can then have the trials and deal with it. So my hope is that this will make it to the Senate. I don't know if we have enough votes. I have no idea. I haven't spent time on the phone calling people. I'm doing this because it's the right thing to do. Everybody gets to take this vote. I suspect there may be members of Congress who want to put a little daylight between themselves and this war or themselves and this administration who survived their election, not just what I call the Retirement Caucus, whose membership swelled on November 3rd. I'm talking about the people who are coming back next Congress and then in two years they're going to have to answer for a war that's gotten even worse and if the if God forbid the Secretary of Defense is still in charge of it they're going to own all of his misfortune and misdeeds and so I would encourage my colleagues to read the eight articles of impeachment. If I'm wrong tell me where I'm wrong. I would encourage the speaker not to try to dismiss this with a motion to table it or a motion to refer it to committee. That's one thing I want to prepare everybody for. A motion to refer this to committee is a motion to kill this impeachment. So they may try to get out of an actual vote on the substance of this. We should have a vote and a rigorous debate on these eight articles of impeachment. And with that, I will take questions. Thank you very much. I was going to let one of my staff do this. All right. Do you think Pete Hegseth is the worst U.S. defense secretary in history? He wouldn't be the only one impeached by the House. Um, this happened in the 1800s and I think that the gentleman resigned or something happened, maybe went to prison. I don't know what happened, but it never, uh, matriculated to an issue in the Senate. So, um, it's not unprecedented and one other question, sir. One other question. Let me, let me take it over here. Do you think you can ask you about the school in a row and then you talked about, yeah. Thank you, Congressman. Really quickly, there are rumors that libertarians are trying to recruit you for 2028 to play spoiler. Will you commit to supporting the GOP nominee in 2028? That's a different conversation. Congressman, can I ask you about the school in Iran? The school in Iran, I went to Iran to Minab a few months ago, and they reported on the terrible trauma and tragedy of the families whose children were ripped apart by the Tomahawk missiles. And a lot of them said they thought Pete Hegseth was a war criminal. They believed this was a war crime, and that's been echoed by... He's a very respectable American expert on the law. Would you go that far? Would you say that he is a war criminal off the back of that terrible tragedy there in Manab? I did not go that far in these articles. You won't find a reference to war crimes. What I do say, though, is because he's violated the international norms of war and violated our own conventions of war, he's put our own soldiers and sailors at risk. When you go back for a second kill, On people who are clinging to wreckage, you're encouraging our adversaries to do the same. That's why those laws, those international laws are on the books. But I did not go that far, but I will say that he has violated the norms of war, and it's to the disadvantage and the dishonor of our country and to the danger of our soldiers in future conflicts. Would you go that far now, though? Congressman Massey, the Secretary Hegseth has called you a disgruntled, defeated congressman, said that your plan will not work. What's your response to that? Well, he's right about one thing. I'm a defeated congressman. I'm not disgruntled. And we'll see if the plan works. I mean, he should, look, I'm being polite here. What is an impeachment? An impeachment is just firing somebody, really. You don't go to prison. You don't go to jail. You're not, you don't pay a fine. Okay. When the Democrats get in charge, they are going to be very vicious. The one thing that I wasn't able to compel With my articles of impeachment, which is why we don't want to refer it to a committee because they won't have hearings, but the Democrats are going to have hearings. They won't have just eight articles of impeachment. I suspect if Pete Hegseth doesn't leave, and this is the answer to your question, will it work? I hope for his sake it does work because the Democrats are going to bring people in here who have served under him and with him, give them protection. They'll be able to say what he's actually done, the things that he has ignored, the things that he did that caused civilian casualties, the way he's ignored the laws, and then there'll be a full robust trial over in the Senate. And it's not a certain thing that he would survive the Senate, even though You know, they don't have, what would you call it, an impeachment-proof majority in the Senate. The Democrats don't. You have Republicans who are going to be compelled once there's more testimony and more hearings and more trials. And so if working is getting him to leave a day earlier, Then he already otherwise would have. I think it's probably worked. Yes, sir. Congressman, you said that this guy is serious. He doesn't let go of that coffee. I need a cup of coffee. . You said that Hegseth was following unlawful orders. . . . You said the president is culpable. . . Why then or did you consider bringing articles against . . . . the president over this war? . . I think the president needs to see one of this is a metaphor. . . . . . . One of his horses shot out from under him . . and then maybe he will see things differently. . . . I think politically it's an impossible hurdle, . . . but also I think this is the better target. . Sometimes you apply the ordinance where the best target is, and the best target is Pete Hegseth. What I, what... One of the things that I really want out of this is to litigate whether Congress has war powers or not. I've got Republican colleagues who know I'm right on this. They're worried about the politics of it. What I'm really trying to do here with some of these articles is litigate three Three provisions of the War Powers Resolution, and have other folks violated them as well? Yeah, not as blatantly or as egregiously as Pete Hegseth, but somebody's got to put their foot down and say, are we going to follow the laws that are on the books? Are we going to follow the Constitution? And the best way to do that is to have an impeachment against Pete Hegseth. I suspect, honestly, there may be Democrats who would prefer when their person is in power To not be constrained by this vote in their history where because, you know, let's imagine a scenario which is not too hard to imagine after last week's shellacking where the Democrats control all three levers, the House, the Senate and the White House. I suspect, you know, just like Bill Clinton did and Barack Obama, I suspect they're going to want to go in there and ignore Congress and use these powers. So this is the right this is the right forum to have it in the right. Let me keep going in this way. Go ahead. Has leadership given you any indication of when they might bring this to the floor, bring this to a vote? And also just in conversations with fellow Republicans. Like, how hard is leadership whipping this, as you understand it? Are they going all out, pulling out all the stops, or is this kind of more of a vote of conscience? I suspect they whipped it before the recess and sent us home early. And maybe it was just because people didn't want to take a vote that was closely associated with the Iran war or with this administration in advance of a tough election. So, but now, I don't know if they're whipping it or not. I mean, if they start to whip it, it looks desperate. I saw that the secretary... He has scheduled a press conference for tomorrow, if I saw that right, on my way to deliver these articles. Thank you. I suspect they will let the secretary give his rebuttal to these articles before they have the vote. You see, leadership, as I'm sure you know, they can have the vote within two legislative days. And it could take the form of... Of a motion to table or a motion to refer to committee or they could vote on the substance. But in any of those scenarios, they could do it. We could have the vote tonight. We could have it tomorrow. We could have it Wednesday. But I would encourage them to have a vote on the substance of it. And I suspect since we saw the secretary scheduled his own press conference that they're going to let him deliver a rebuttal. And to that point, I hope he addresses the eight articles and doesn't get up and misquote the Bible in Quentin Tarantino fashion and do some pull-ups and, you know, call everybody fat and gay, like, for being for this impeachment. Like, I may have just given you half his speech. I don't know. I would like to see him go through the eight articles of impeachment and just make the argument from a podium. You can use notes, get the lawyers to help you. Tell us why you are not guilty of each of these eight articles of impeachment. I hope that's what he does. And so that's my answer to your question. When do I suspect it's going to be? I suspect it's It's not going to be tonight or tomorrow before that. Before the secretary speaks, let me, let me, why not wait until the Democrats take over? Why do it right now? Because people are 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 until after the election, the speaker waited till after the election. I wanted to have this vote 10 weeks ago. Um, and so, you know, there's never a good time, honestly. You could... You know, I think the Democrats would do well to vote for this and it looks like they are going to vote for it. So that's a question for them. What are they going to do after they take the majority? But I'll tell you why I'm not waiting until next Congress, because I'm not here next Congress. What's your reaction? Have any Republican House members given you their commitment that they will vote for this? No. I have, a lot of them tell me they don't like Hegseth. Okay. If this does pass, it goes to the Senate, it's really not expected to pass there. Are you thinking that the war is just going to end if it passes in the House or, I mean, that would take a full conviction? I don't know if it's going to pass the House or not. I don't have a crystal ball. You guys may 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 the Senate. I want to see them go on record. They could dispose with it the way Chuck Schumer did with an impeachment resolution, I think, against Mayorkas, where they don't really vote on the substance. They just try to dismiss it out of hand instead of getting into a trial and having a hearing on it. Okay, got it. But as long as they have a vote over there, I think it's good. And it's not the way I want it. I didn't want us to be in the minority in the House or the Senate, but we're still in the majority. They can still do the right thing. Let me take this question. Sir, if it does go that way. Let me take this question. Thank you. So with Susie Wiles gone and with your term expiring, why would instead, and you just admitted basically no Republicans are siding with you on this, why don't instead, I mean it was floated back in the day that You were considered for Department of Agriculture. Why not work with someone like Stephen Miller, who might be a little more aligned with you, to get a position somewhere there and do some good rather than this, which probably won't pass? If you follow my 14-year career, I mean, I wrote the Iran resolution, the first one we voted on. Like, this is at my core. This is something important to do. I don't want to be sitting at home thinking about, well, I should have done that, and I didn't do it. Because I think this needs to be litigated. I'm not interested in a position in the administration, although it sounds like there could be a lot of them opening up. And you said that nobody is siding with me on the Republican side. I suspect there are... Several who will. I just haven't talked to them. I'm not whipping it. It's not, you know, it's going to be everybody's conscience. And then they'll have to live with that vote. And they're going to have to live with that vote two years from now if they're not part of the retirement caucus. And if they are part of the retirement caucus, what do they have to lose? Quick question. What do you make of the rumors that allegedly there's a push to make Pete Hegseth? The new senator from Tennessee, that Marsha Blackburn, whenever she goes to be a governor, she might appoint him. What do you think of that? Well, I heard a rumor that's already been promised to somebody else. And, you know, that's what happens. Usually those promises are made before the races happen, not after the races happen. So I don't think that's going to happen. on the bombing of the girls school in Iran which is part of your articles the White House and the Pentagon have continued to defer questions about that citing an ongoing investigation I'm wondering if you have reached out to anyone or had any communication with the Pentagon about an investigation into that before you introduce it into your in your articles and second just wondering if you can address what we've heard from some Republicans which is that this is very It's very personal. To you, that the secretary endorsed and campaigned with your primary opponent. Could you just address whether or not this is personal? Number one, it's not personal to me at all. And then the question about the school board, like who do they think bombed the school? Does the White House say they think Iran bombed their own school? It's a false flag attack. I mean, obviously. We hit it and you can determine what kind of missiles from the range and the kind of destruction there was. Um, I don't think they're going to get out of that article of impeachment by saying, Oh, we don't know who bombed that school. Although I think the president tried that for a day or two. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay. The president has indicated that he's going to keep Pete Hegseth in this position. The secretary is fighting this and the Senate, as you know, is very unlikely to convict him. Even if this does pass the House. So would you acknowledge that this is really a symbolic move that you're employing here? No, it's not symbolic. How is it not symbolic? It's not symbolic because I think a lot of people, First of all, read the eight articles. It's not a policy disagreement. Way to go, Matthew! It's not that I don't like the war in Iran. It's not that I don't like his style. These are, nobody has attacked. Any of these articles yet, nobody's gone in and said this one's wrong or that one's wrong or this one's wrong or this one's poorly drafted or that one's legally wrong. So it's not that. And the other thing is the practical effect of this is. Everybody's wondering when Pete Hegseth is going to leave. It's not a matter of, and this is a question that does need to be asked. He is not doing a good job. In addition to breaking the law and violating the Constitution, he's not doing a good job. You've got members of the military who know that. You've got members of the House Armed Services who know that. So, as I said before, if this precipitates his departure, I'm all with the White House. Don't give Massey a win. Don't let this thing pass. Let him quit or have him resign in the next day or two. If he stays in power and the Republicans reject this, what message do you think it sends to the American public after last week's elections? Well, there's 435 congressional districts. A lot of the incumbents are going to be leaving, but most of the incumbents are coming back. And those incumbents have to answer to their people. Every one of them has to answer that question. I think it sends a dangerous message. You've got the vice president, the president, virtually everybody, even the cheerleaders The leaders for the war are now acknowledging that they lost this election. because of the war. And this is the best vote you can take right now to put some daylight between yourself and the failed policy of this war in Iran and the way that it's been handled. And the other articles of impeachment are important too, just to answer these constitutional questions. I mean, the answer is obvious. That's why nobody wants to debate them. Congressman Massie, of the eight articles of impeachment, which one do you think has the most likelihood of prevailing? Uh, I think I, he, he asked, okay, sorry. He asked what of the eight articles of impeachment, which ones he thinks have the most chance of prevailing. Um, I think the one that's on its face Clearly, a violation of the law is the concurrent resolution, and so this is like when you have a trial. There needs to be a trial on this. The Senate needs to tell us, do they think I think the... that it's either 5B or 5C of the 1973 War Powers Resolution? Do they think it's a bad law? Because if they do, they need to take it off the books, but this is cut and dry. They're in violation of the provision that says a concurrent resolution. It means that you have to stop. And then the other one, by the way, these aren't necessarily in order of importance, but they are in order of, I would, your question was likelihood. The other is the 60-day time limit. They've clearly gone beyond 60 days. They're clearly no longer saying this isn't one continuous war, but their lawyers are still trying to say that behind the scenes. And that needs to be fleshed out. I think that's obvious. Does anybody here think this war has gone on less than 60 days? No, it's gone on more than 60 days and nobody, unlike the provision with the concurrent resolution where they say it's been obviated or I'm sorry, it's, it's been antiquated or by the Chada versus INS, the 60 day provision is still there and nobody says it's unconstitutional. And every single one of you here knows it's been more than 60 days. People back home know it's been more than 60 days. So I would say on their face, those are the ones that you could win by summary judgment if you had this in front of a real courtroom. Okay, I'll start back over here. Secretary Hegseth told the troops ignore the noise and to continue to perform. Do you have a message for the troops? Because they're going to be impacted by this. Yeah, I do. I do have a message to the troops. Thank you. This secretary has used our troops to go seize oil for large corporations in America. You shouldn't be used like that. You signed up to pledge your life. For this country, if need be, and that obligation shouldn't be diminished to be to stealing oil for big corporations, I would also say that there's a reason we have rules of engagement. It's not just Secretary Hegseth says, okay, rules of engagement, those get in our way. Those are too hard. I think most soldiers understand. When you get into a war, as ridiculous as it sounds, that there should be laws of war when you kill each other, there's a reason for it. If you capture the enemy, they shouldn't be summarily executed. I don't want our own soldiers to be submitted to that. So we shouldn't be engaging that kind of activity ourselves. That helps. And. And then finally, my other message to the soldiers is active duty. One day you're going to be retired. Hopefully you make it through with your lives intact. Do you deserve a diminished First Amendment protection like Hegseth has not just implied, but said of Senator Mark Kelly? That because he served in the military before, now he can't say the same things that everybody else can say? Because the military, after you've done, you know, served your years and your obligation to your country, and now you're sitting at home, they can come back, you say something on the internet and This notion that the military can grab you and pull you back in and put you in front of a tribunal without real judges, it's ridiculous. So there are at least three ways in here where I'm looking out for members of the military. And we don't, you know, I also find it offensive that Secretary Hegseth somewhere in his comments said that Oh, Massie has impugned the service of these members. No, the members aren't the problem. It's their leader that is the problem. And they deserve a better leader than Pete Hegseth. And so that's my message to the soldiers. What about the commanders, though, sir? Do you think the commanders should be impeached and charged? Can I ask you about your fellow senators in Kentucky, or your senators that are from Kentucky? You're going to have a new one. Congressman Andy Barr is going to be sworn in in January. Rand Paul has been supportive of your efforts so far. Well, he's been supportive of ending the war in Iran so far. Have you talked to either of them or to Senator McConnell's team or Senator McConnell himself about this effort and where they stand on this issue of impeaching Pete Hegseth? I have not. But if it were possible to have a conversation with McConnell, I would like to know why he didn't vote to confirm Hegseth. So there are three senators, like if you're going over and looking at the Senate, I think it was Collins. And Murkowski and McConnell, who did not vote for confirmation. So when you're looking at votes and could this pass the Senate or not, I think there are some votes over there. And possibly, I haven't talked to Senator Paul about it. He did lead the charge on extrajudicial killings when Obama undertook this with drones. And so I would hope he's still of the same opinion. I think he has also early on commented about the illegality of bombing these boats. With suspected drug traffickers in them. Do you agree with the vice president that the Iran war was the defining reason why Republicans lost last week? Are you talking to other colleagues in the House who feel similarly? I think they've diagnosed one of about six reasons they got shellacked in this election. People are more opposed to the consequences of this war than they are this war. I don't think they're particularly worried about the civil rights of people or the civilian casualties in Iran. They're worried about the price of gasoline and diesel and in Kentucky, fertilizer for fields and in the supermarket, the price of food. Those things have been driven up not just by this failed, misguided war in Iran, but by the big, beautiful bill. That was a mistake. As I said here the night they made it over the final hurdle, I said, we're not rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic with the big, beautiful bill. We're setting a course for the iceberg, like we're intentionally doing things that we know will cause inflation and higher interest rates. So I don't think there's been a full accounting. Also, they abandoned the MAHA segment of the coalition. I sat over here in the Supreme Court and watched our Department of Justice argue that Monsanto, it's Bayer now, but their product, glyphosate, Roundup, should be immune from any, even if it does cause cancer, even if it does cause cancer. They should be immune. That was our own DOJ. Pam Bondi was the Attorney General when that case was being tried. I suspect Susie Wiles had something to do with the president's, this is the accusation from Colleen Means, which I don't doubt at all, that she was instrumental in somehow, maybe mischaracterizing what he said, but I'll just say it as if I said it myself, that her lobbying firm He represents them, and so it's no mistake that the president gave a degree of immunity through an executive order. So he's alienated the Maha coalition. Doge got run out of here on a rail. The Democrats still want to vilify Republicans for using Doge. Doge never really happened. Go look at the bottom line. We're spending more money than we did before Doge. And so I think Elon Musk found it was easier to land rockets backwards and put internet on Antarctica and get cars to drive themselves than it was to get anybody in these two chambers to cut a penny of spending. And so these are the things, these are the reasons they lost the election. It's not just the Iran war. To hit that tweet again, how much responsibility do you believe the vice president bears for the Iran war? Well, he whipped the big, beautiful bill, so he 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 to be harder and harder to do if this thing drags on. When he served as a senator, he and I talked about stopping the war in Ukraine and the futility of that and how do you wind that down. So I do believe, at his heart, he's against these things. I don't know if it's just a populist notion or whatever, and he sees which way the wind is blowing. But I do have reason to believe he wanted us out of Ukraine back when he was a senator. But at some point, he's either with the administration or not with the administration on this. That's up for him to decide. We're doing one impeachment at a time. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Yes, thank you, Congressman. Is this sort of your farewell card to the admin, or do you have something else up your sleeve? Well, we'd like to pass the next Epstein bill. You know, I stood here at this podium with survivors behind me, and we got three million files released. I'd like to see that continue forward. Uh, it's, It's not, I mean, these are, by the way, these are promises that this administration made. That they would release these files, for instance, or that there 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 clock in advance of the elections, two weeks so I couldn't do the Epstein stuff, and one day so we couldn't do the Hegseth. If I can think of anything else to do, I'll do it, as long as I'm doing the right thing. There's somebody over here about doing other things. You want to make a comment about Brian Cole Jr. in that case? I think he's innocent, but let's keep this to Congress. Congressman Massey, you announced before the recess that you had 218 signatures to release the Epstein files. Is that still the case after the election? I think so. I mean, it's just two Democrats that we needed, not two Republicans. Congressman, you said you didn't explicitly lay out that the Hegseth, you didn't charge him of committing war crimes, but you mentioned in your resolution denying quarter, which is a war crime. You mentioned the double tap strike, which is against Geneva Conventions and also is widely considered to be a war crime. If the House votes on this, is that an acknowledgement that the Department of Defense under Pete Hegseth has conducted or committed some degree of war crimes in line with high crimes and misdemeanor standard to meet the requirement of impeachment? No, I don't think so, and the Senate would have to have a trial for that, but I'm not accusing him of war crimes. Does he have blood on his hands? Of course, the civilians, because he's the one who rolled back the civilian targeting protections at the Department of Defense, absolutely. Congressman Massey. Secretary Hegseth out before the end of your term, are you at all concerned that this could become a rallying cry for him within the administration? I don't think so. I don't know how you rally around eight articles of impeachment. It's not one or two. It's eight times he's violated the Constitution or the law. And, you know, the president has got away with a lot of things that nobody else can get away with. And I don't think it's a, I don't, whereas the president today probably wears those former impeachments as a badge of honor. I don't think Hegseth gets to wear this that way. It's not the way it will be looked at in history. All right. I'll take two more questions. Yeah. You said that you weren't whipping this vote together, but has there been an effort to whip this vote against you? And where has the panic been within Republicans when you brought this up? 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. Yeah. You said it does vote on this at least just vote would be sort of a win, but if it doesn't like what does it accomplish? How, how is it a win if the Senate shoots it down? Well, I mean, a loss is a loss. It's not a win if they shoot it down. But I think it's important to weigh in on this issue. Like, it's, you know. A few of these articles of impeachment, what's at heart here is the balance of power between the executive branch and Congress. And I think it's important for those senators to weigh in, particularly on my first three articles of impeachment, which involve war powers. Where do those war powers reside? Or in Venezuela? Do we think that any ex- executive branch can start their own war. Obviously that the constitution wasn't written for that. And so I would love to see those folks in the Senate go on record, even if it's the wrong way. People, in order for people to elect better people, they need to see where these people stand. And this is one example. Somebody asked, why are you doing this now? Is this just because it's the The end of your term. The reality is... The time for waiting around and being polite and introducing bills and waiting six years to try to get them inside of some other bill, that time is over for me. I am trying to force a vote here on this issue because I think it's at the heart and soul of our republic who has the war powers. Anything after Congress, remaining active or advocating? When they say when one door closes, another door opens, I've found 10 doors that have opened, and my hardest problem is deciding what to do next. So I don't know what I would do. I literally haven't ruled anything out except coming back here. I'm here. All right, yes, if Hegseth is successfully impeached, who would you like to see go in in his place and what would it mean in the immediate future for America and the military? Well, uh... It's not up to me. I mean, it's up to the president to decide. And if I named a name, they would probably never put that person in there. But I will name a name because I suspect he doesn't want the job. I think Ron DeSantis would be great at it. I don't think he would run into the same problems that Hegseth has. Ron DeSantis is a lawyer, right? He understands the legality and constitutional boundaries between the legislative and the executive branch. So he'd be great at that, but I'm only telling you his name because I think he probably doesn't want it and because I would have just jinxed him by saying his name. So anyways, thank you all very much for covering this. Thank you very much for doing this. See you. There will be a taxpayer uprising starting in the Dirksen cafeteria at 10. We'll be in the Schumer's office saying he should not be the next leader of the Democrats. And we'll be going into Jeffrey's office the next day. Code pink.org for more info. Thank you. Thank you. Tell her she can sit here. I'm starting to speak now. How does it sound, Peter? No, I mean to say, I know what I'm not doing. Oh, you're not. How far is it? Thank Absolutely, and if you want, I'm going to take this off the web. Like, give it up. It would be far better than what we're doing now. So, sorry, question. I'm coming. I'm working for the president. In December, your country gets a military partnership with the country. you. So, with the thing, I can have my... Sorry, I'm a French speaker. My question is, what is the impact of what you're doing? I think civilians all over the world are safer with a different Secretary of Defense. It's a great defense. I don't know what the engagement is with your country, and I'm not able to define it. Congressman, you said you don't want the Speaker to table this. I did ask him if he plans to do so, and he said he believes this will be a terrible look, impeaching the cabinet secretary in the middle of a war. How can he respond to that? Did he answer whether he would table it or vote on it or what? Well, that was his response. Okay, so a non-response. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So what's your question to me? Well, just how do you respond to those comments that you believe would be a terrible look to try to have the Secretary of State award? Well, there you have another person admitting it's a war. So he's just admitted that they're beyond 60 days, and they violated the clear provision of the War Powers Resolution. Like, at least we're beyond—if he's to that point, then at least we're beyond the fairy tale that these are separate military engagements and not connected at all. And I, there's, you know, this is what Bush did in 2006. Six, four, three, two, one. He had the good sense to replace Rumsfeld the day after. If this war, if replacing the first, the best he could do was shut down Congress before the election. Congressman, as an American, how do you feel about your government's failure to admit guilt and responsibility and this terrible atrocity in Manab? Every other mass civilian casualty incident in Iraq, Afghanistan, the American government's found the courage to admit it. Why has it not done so, do you think? And how do you feel about that? Well, I think tying it back.