A vote will be fast because of the Privileged Vote method Massie used.
Via AI: On Monday, November 9, 2026, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) introduced eight articles of impeachment against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth (who has styled himself “Secretary of War”) as a privileged resolution. Massie read the articles on the House floor for roughly 1 hour and 20 minutes.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has called himself a “hard yes,” and some Republican sources have indicated the resolution could pass the House despite the current GOP majority (which lasts until January 3).
President Trump has strongly defended Hegseth, citing U.S. military performance in Iran and Venezuela and saying he would stand by him even if impeached. Hegseth has called the effort a sham.
Massie Chimes In
Here’s the 34-page Articles of Impeachment.
Eight Articles of Impeachment Synopsis
- Article I – Waging War in Contravention of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 Section 2(c): Charges Secretary Hegseth with waging the Iran war despite no declaration of war, statutory authorization, attack on the United States, or imminent threat. It establishes that the war was unlawful from its inception.
- Article II – Waging War in Contravention of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 Section 5(c): Charges Secretary Hegseth with continuing the Iran war after both Houses of Congress directed the removal of U.S. forces through H. Con. Res. 86. It focuses on his refusal to obey Congress’s express direction to terminate unauthorized hostilities.
- Article III – Waging War in Contravention of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 Section 5(b): Charges Secretary Hegseth with continuing hostilities in Iran after expiration of the War Powers Resolution’s 60-day termination period and any potential 30-day withdrawal period. It establishes that he treated mandatory statutory deadlines as discretionary.
- Article IV – Ignoring Laws that Minimize Civilian Casualties: Charges Secretary Hegseth with ignoring laws that minimize civilian casualties.
- Article V – Extrajudicial Killings: Charges Secretary Hegseth with replacing maritime law enforcement with unauthorized lethal military targeting of suspected drug traffickers, resulting in at least 221 deaths. It also addresses denial of quarter, secondary strikes on survivors, failure to rescue shipwrecked persons, and the creation of artificial legal authorities for the campaign.
- Article VI – Suppressing Free Speech: Charges Secretary Hegseth with using DOD authority to retaliate against and intimidate Senator Mark Kelly for constitutionally protected speech questioning unlawful military orders.
- Article VII – Kidnapping of a Sovereign Foreign Leader: Charges Secretary Hegseth with directing Operation ABSOLUTE RESOLVE to seize Nicolás Maduro and Cilia Flores in Venezuela without constitutional or legal authority.
- Article VIII – Unlawful War in Yemen: Charges Secretary Hegseth with initiating Operation ROUGH RIDER without congressional authorization or an imminent threat to the United States, while also violating war powers reporting requirements. It further addresses extensive civilian deaths and unlawful strikes on civilian objects, rescuers, and other protected persons.
The synopsis is from Thomas Massie’s website Rep. Massie Forces Vote to Impeach Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth
Hegseth Will Be Impeached Unless He Resigns or Is Fired
The above sentence is my take.
It’s been obvious since September 15 when he wrote the above article.
Contrast to Trump’s First Impeachment
Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced a formal impeachment inquiry on September 24, 2019, after a whistleblower complaint about the Ukraine call. Multiple House committees (led by Intelligence) then spent weeks conducting closed-door depositions of officials, gathering documents, and holding public hearings in November. The Judiciary Committee reviewed the evidence, marked up two articles (abuse of power and obstruction of Congress) in mid-December, and the full House voted to impeach on December 18, 2019. The Senate trial followed in January–February 2020.
usatoday.comThe length came from deliberate fact-finding: depositions, hearings, reports, and dealing with White House resistance to subpoenas. Traditional practice is for the House to investigate charges (usually via the Judiciary Committee or other panels) before voting on articles. That builds a record and is how nearly all modern impeachments that reach the Senate have proceeded. Republicans at the time called the 2019 process rushed compared with Nixon or Clinton; Democrats viewed it as focused and necessary given the timeline before the 2020 election.
Trump’s Second Impeachment
This was much faster. After the January 6 Capitol riot, the House voted to impeach on January 13, 2021—about a week later—on a charge of incitement of insurrection. There was no extended multi-committee investigation or months of hearings; it relied heavily on the public record of events. The Senate trial occurred in February. This shows the House can move quickly when it chooses to, especially with clear, highly visible conduct.
Can Hegseth Be Impeached Again on Same Charges?
Yes. A new Congress can try again, whether the current effort fails to produce a House impeachment or the Senate fails to convict.
Impeachment is a political and constitutional process for removal from office, not a criminal proceeding.
The Fifth Amendment’s double jeopardy protection (which applies to criminal prosecutions) does not bar a subsequent impeachment of the same official on the same or related grounds. There is no constitutional limit on how many times the House can impeach a sitting civil officer, and the Senate can try those articles.
Is it a Mistake to Try to Impeach Now?
Whether this is a mistake or not depends on the goal.
Is the goal actual removal, political messaging, forcing a record, or to simply build pressure.
Reasonable people can disagree on the timing.
Arguments It’s a Mistake (or at Least Suboptimal)
- Removal is extremely unlikely either way. The current Senate has a Republican majority (53 seats). Conviction requires two-thirds (normally 67). Even after January 3, when Democrats take control of both chambers, they are projected to hold a majority in the mid-50s—still far short of 67 without substantial Republican defections. A House vote now produces a high-profile but non-binding outcome that does not change the Senate math.
- The process is abbreviated. Massie’s privileged resolution forces floor consideration within two legislative days without a formal committee investigation, extensive public hearings, or a developed evidentiary record. Traditional impeachments of high officials (including Trump’s first) involved months of that work. A quick privilege vote is easier for opponents to dismiss as a procedural stunt or “cheap trick,” as Speaker Johnson has characterized it. A Democratic majority in the next Congress could instead run a fuller inquiry with subpoenas and hearings.
- Political risks. It puts remaining House Republicans (including those who lost their races) on the record in a lame-duck session. It can be framed by the administration and allies as partisan theater amid post-midterm recriminations over the Iran war. If it fails or is tabled, critics can point to the outcome as a rejection. Even if it passes the House, the near-certainty of Senate non-conviction can be spun as validation. Trump has publicly defended Hegseth and attacked Massie; forcing the issue now may harden that stance rather than create an off-ramp.
- Opportunity cost. The lame-duck session has other business (funding, confirmations, etc.). Leadership has previously recessed early to avoid similar votes.
Arguments that It’s Not a Mistake
- It forces a vote and a public record now. A simple House majority is more attainable in the current chamber with some Republican discomfort over the Iran war and midterm losses than it might appear. It requires members to go on record rather than letting the issue fade. Massie has argued this is preferable to waiting for Democrats to take over and pursue more aggressive investigations or other measures.
- Political pressure can matter even without conviction. Impeachment (or the threat) has historically influenced resignations, firings, or policy changes without reaching a two-thirds Senate vote. It keeps the issue in the news, highlights specific allegations (War Powers, civilian casualties, other operations), and may affect Hegseth’s standing inside the administration or with some Republicans. Democrats have already signaled they intend scrutiny in the new Congress; an earlier vote can preview that.
- Precedent for speed. Trump’s second impeachment moved from January 6 events to a House vote in about a week with limited formal process. The House has tools for rapid action when it chooses.
- Outgoing member’s leverage. Massie is leaving after losing a primary. He has little incentive to protect leadership preferences and has used privilege rules precisely because leadership would not otherwise schedule the measure.
Assume Impeachment Now, What Happens
- A full trial would consume days or weeks of floor time in a lame-duck session that already has other priorities (funding measures, remaining nominations, etc.). With no realistic path to conviction, most Republican senators have little appetite for a prolonged public process that would highlight the Iran war and related controversies while the party is still absorbing midterm losses.
- Precedent exists for the Senate to move quickly. In the 2024 Mayorkas impeachment (the most recent Cabinet secretary case), the Senate dismissed the articles without a full trial after the House sent them over.
- Thune has generally shown interest in managing the Senate’s calendar tightly and avoiding unnecessary spectacles. A drawn-out trial would also force every Republican senator to cast recorded votes on the articles, which many would prefer to avoid.
Mish Assessment
Hegseth is a war criminal who belongs in prison. But Hegseth will never go to prison because Trump would pardon him.
Trying impeachment now is a low-probability path to actual removal and carries the usual risks of a rushed, highly partisan-looking process in a lame-duck period. Massie has a score to settle, and that is how Republicans will portray it.
Assuming impeachment, a trial in the Senate would fail this year, with a decent chance of no vote at all. It might ruin the chances with the incoming Senate. It gives the easy excuse to the next set of Senators to say, we already tried this once.
There could be some Senate Republican votes now (Senator Rand Paul and Thom Tillis immediately come to mind). However, I suspect we would not find out because Majority Leader Thune would not even hold a trial.
The majority leader (Thune) controls the floor schedule. A simple majority can sustain motions to dismiss, table, or otherwise dispose of the articles without a lengthy trial.
All things considered, if the goal is maximizing the chance of a serious impeachment effort that could conceivably pressure for removal or produce a fuller record, waiting for the new Congress is the stronger procedural path.
Next year, there would be a near-certainty of a trial (or at least some process other than outright dismissal), with a much better chance of success. At a minimum, there would be better records and grounds for impeachment with potentially damaging revelations that could force Hegseth to resign.
The clearest advantage to wait (assuming a conventional inquiry instead of a Privileged Vote) is the incoming majority can produce a fuller evidentiary record, public hearings, and potentially damaging revelations that are harder to dismiss and more capable of shifting political costs inside the administration.
Rules of Engagement – No Rules
Killing Survivors Is Not a Legal or Moral Gray Area
The LA Times author Jon Duffy, a retired Navy captain, says Killing survivors is not a legal or moral gray area
If the United States has been firing second missiles at the survivors of its own strikes, we are no longer debating policy. We are describing a nation committing the very acts it once prosecuted others for. We have become what we once condemned.
There is a rule every professional military knows it cannot break: You do not kill people who can no longer fight. This restraint is not because it is merciful or sentimental. You don’t do it because the moment you do, you are no longer engaged in war. You are no longer fighting an enemy. You are killing for the state.
The Geneva Conventions forbid violence against anyone “placed hors de combat,” or “out of the fight.” The Department of Defense’s Law of War Manual restates this without qualification. Section 18.3.2.1 even states, “For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal.” Every American service member learns it before deploying. Killing people who are swimming for their lives is not a “disputed framework.” It is the abandonment of law.
We know that a senior lawyer at U.S. Southern Command raised legal concerns and was sidelined from the process. Silencing a dissenting voice is not the act of a confident military. It is the act of one that knows its actions cannot withstand scrutiny. We know the SOUTHCOM commander, Admiral Alvin Holsey, abruptly announced his retirement amid these operations. While we do not yet know whether he objected, resisted or simply stepped aside — the effect was unmistakable: The last check on illegality disappeared, and the killing continued. That is not professionalism. That is a force conditioned to obey at the moment it most needed to resist.
A second missile does not fire itself. Killing survivors requires the participation or assent of entire layers of command: intelligence analysts, targeteers, pilots, strike cell leads, watch officers, military lawyers, commanders, post-strike assessors. This was not a lone aviator making a catastrophic judgment. This was institutional, and the institution committed a crime.
Firing on the defenseless is not a gray area or “irregular warfare.” Our uniforms may be cleaner, the legal memos more elaborate, the language more sanitized — but the act is the same. These are war crimes — ordered from the very top of the chain of command. And the consequence is unmistakable: the collapse of the moral credibility of American power.
There must be investigations. There must be consequences — reaching as far up the chain of command as the facts demand. A military that kills the helpless is not operating in a fog of war. It has crossed the final boundary separating a professional force from a system designed to execute, not to think. Once that boundary is breached, there is no such thing as “good order and discipline.” There is only obedience in service of harm.
A nation that orders its service members to kill the defenseless is not being protected by its military. It is morally injuring its warriors, dishonoring the institution they serve and disfiguring itself.
And a nation that tolerates this — without outrage, without accountability, without demanding that it stop immediately — can make no claim to exceptionalism. It has surrendered its soul.
Jon Duffy is a retired Navy captain. His active duty career included command at sea and national security roles. He writes about leadership and democracy.
Redacted Video
Here’s the redacted video of the US sinking a drug boat.
I saw the underacted video before Hegseth took it down.
The US killed survivors clinging to wreckage, a war crime.
Mishtalk Flashback December 2, 2025: How Long Does Hegseth Survive His Support for Illegal Actions?
Hegseth openly condones war crimes. The Senate is investigating.
How Long Will Hegseth Last?
The answer easy, although unspecific. Hegseth will survive until Trump decides Hegseth is a liability.
That said, Trump is likely to pardon Hegseth. But bear in mind, accepting a pardon is admitting guilt.
The sham investigation was quickly shoved under the rug.
A new investigation would get to the matter properly. A privileged vote won’t.
Article posted with permission from Mish Shedlock
