re: Massie Tries to Impeach the SecDef

quote:

---

The SecDef doesn't make policy. He carries it out. Mashole knows this.

---

quote:

---

What high crimes and misdemeanors has Pete done? I am genuinely wanting to know.

---

I'm with you on that. My only thought was that it was a usage of the UCMJ that would apply to Hegseth like Hegseth tried to pin Senator Mark Kelly.

FWIW, ChatGPT doubts it would work in this scenario. I wonder if Massie might amend to allege war crimes relating to killing shipwreck survivors.

####

Chat....


I checked the actual descriptions of Massie's September 15, 2026 impeachment resolution. Massie is accusing Hegseth of knowingly executing and implementing unlawful orders to commence the Iran hostilities, but he frames that as a constitutional/War Powers violation and an abuse of his office, not as a violation of the UCMJ.

The distinction is important
Massie's Iran allegations essentially say:
Congress did not declare war on Iran.
Massie argues there was no applicable statutory authorization or Article II authority for the hostilities.

He argues the War Powers Resolution therefore prohibited the introduction and continued use of U.S. forces.

He specifically alleges that Hegseth "knowingly executed and implemented the order" to commence the hostilities.
He therefore characterizes Hegseth's conduct as unlawful and as grounds for impeachment.

But Massie does not appear to be saying: "Hegseth violated Article 92 of the UCMJ by obeying an unlawful order."
That's a different legal theory.
And there's an additional Hegseth-specific wrinkle
I need to correct something important from my previous answer.

Hegseth served in the Army National Guard, rather than retiring from a regular component of the armed forces. The UCMJ's Article 2(a)(4) jurisdiction specifically covers retired members of a regular component who are entitled to pay.

That makes the situation materially different from, for example, Sen. Mark Kelly, who retired as a Navy captain and remains within the UCMJ's retiree jurisdiction.

So the argument that:
Hegseth is a retired officer ? therefore UCMJ applies ? therefore he could be court-martialed for following an illegal order
is not necessarily valid for Hegseth, because his military status was National Guard rather than regular-component retirement. Contemporary reporting on the Kelly controversy has likewise specifically distinguished Hegseth's former National Guard status from Kelly's status as a retired Navy officer.

But your underlying idea gets at something interesting
There is a potentially powerful legal distinction between:
"I was ordered to do it"
and
"I knew the order was unlawful and nevertheless carried it out."

The UCMJ expressly imposes a duty to obey lawful orders; an order that is manifestly unlawful does not become lawful simply because it comes from a superior.

But Massie's impeachment resolution appears to be using that concept primarily to establish Hegseth's personal responsibility for the allegedly unlawful military operation, rather than charging him under the UCMJ.

And there's another revealing part of Massie's resolution: Article VI concerns Hegseth's retaliation against Mark Kelly after Kelly told service members they have an obligation to refuse illegal orders. Massie is therefore directly incorporating the illegal-orders issue into his impeachment case—but as an alleged abuse of constitutional rights/free speech and military authority, rather than charging Hegseth with a UCMJ offense himself.

So, if you're wondering whether Massie may have deliberately constructed the impeachment articles around the same "illegal orders" principle that Hegseth used against Kelly, there is a real connection. But the actual articles I found don't identify the UCMJ as the legal basis for impeaching Hegseth.

If you'd like, I can **??go through all eight of Massie's articles line-by-line and identify which specific federal statute, constitutional provision, or military-law principle each one relies upon.**

quote:

---

The SecDef doesn't make policy. He carries it out. Mashole knows this. Mashole goes forward anyway into midterms. He's not any side folks. But money and power. I'm sorry but its true.

---

It's not that simple.

You have a duty to refuse unlawful orders in the military.

I realize he's technically a civilian, but the same principle applies to him - you are still held responsible for your actions.

Just like all those nazi's after WW2 who were just following orders were held responsible and so on.

quote:

---

Unauthorized war with Iran and ignoring congress, who according to the US is the one with the power to declare war. That's Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

Boat strikes were against international law and were a war crime according to Geneva Conventions.

And then there is all the internal stuff that I don't keep up with to be honest.

Personally I wouldn't mind impeaching Trump on these as well. If for no other reason than to give Vance a 2 year test drive.

---

Thats you in case you didn't know which I dicovered is highly likely.

quote:

---

The fact you blame Massie instead of Mike Johnson highlights you don't actually care about conservative issues.

---

Massie got duped and voted with dems to get it out of committee. Had he not been so dumb it wouldn’t have made it out of committee. You need a basic civics lesson.

quote:

---

It's idiotic to suggest that this is "grandstand-ish" instead of full-on, in your face grandstandING. This has absolutely zero chance of going anywhere because, as I asked twice before I got even an attempt at an answer, he is not impeaching the man responsible. Period.

---

I think there's a 25% chance that Hegseth will be impeached. It's humorous in calling me stupid that you don't seem to know the difference between House/Impeachment (simple majority) and Senate/Conviction and Removal (2/3rds vote) from office.[I know you DO understand the difference. I'm just returning the favor of saying someone is "stupid" just because they reach an assessment different from yours.]

Also, I would say there's a 5% chance of conviction in the Senate. Tillis will lead the charge.

Also, in a Constitutional Republic, it's a good thing for the separate branches to recognize their respective lanes. So, it would be healthy to have an actual debate about that.

So, no...NOT completely grandstanding. Of course, that's just my opinion, but it's not stupid. Neither is your position.

I respect you. You don't always engage in personal attacks in lieu of logic (unlike DeMented and Predo). I hope we can keep it that way.

By not voting to end they give consent you dipshit

quote:

---

By not voting to end they give consent you dipshit

---

Dude...

Not dude. They voteed and didn’t pass. Multiple times now. Again you’re a moron.