MASSIEFLIX

Rep. Massie joins Emily Jashinsky on After Party 3/4/26

Mar 4, 2026 · 17:34 2026-primarytrumpuniparty

On Emily Jashinsky's After Party at the start of the 2026 primary fight: the Trump-backed challenger, the uniparty pile-on, and what Massie thinks his race actually means.

Original by RepThomasMassie on YouTube ↗ · Is this yours? Claim credit →

Chapters

  1. 0:00 Start
  2. 10:00 10:00

Transcript

Click any timestamp to jump to that moment.

114 lines
  1. Congressman Thomas Massie joined us for an interview shortly after leaving the House floor during a debate about the War Powers Bill that he introduced with
  2. Congressman Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna of California. Now, this is a very close vote in the House of Representatives. A vote in the Senate
  3. failed. Uh that failed right while we were talking actually. While I was talking to Thomas Massie, the War Powers vote failed in the Senate. Now, if it had
  4. cleared both chambers, I talked to him about this in the interview, uh he would have been able to um potentially get that to the president's desk and the president almost certainly would have
  5. vetoed it. He has said he has no intention of seeking a War Powers Bill from from Congress or seeking congressional approval for the war in Iran. There are of course two different
  6. layers to this, right? The War Powers question, whether or not this was a constitutional use of executive authority. You know where I always land on this, unfortunately, this is the
  7. expansive executive power that we have right now. You can cook up an OLC Office of Legal Counsel opinion to basically justify any use of military force
  8. as has happened in recent years many many times. Uh now, is it out of step with the spirit of the Constitution and the spirit of Article 1 powers? Is the
  9. the way our war powers have expanded over time out of step with that? Yeah. >> [snorts] >> Uh so, I talked to the Congressman about that if there are structural powers structural changes needed to be made to
  10. the War Powers Resolution, but most importantly, we got the Congressman fresh off like he walked straight from the House floor to his office to talk to
  11. us about what this debate was like as the attacks on Iran continue. This conflict continues right now, literally.
  12. I'm looking at what's happening as we're sitting here um in the Middle East. It's it's raging. So, without further ado, here is Congressman Thomas
  13. Massie on our show right now live for you on this Wednesday evening. It is Congress that must decide war. If
  14. American lives are to be risked and American blood is to be shed, that decision must be debated and voted on by the representatives of the American people and that debate is meant to be
  15. arduous and that vote is meant to be hard. I have a theory. I think my colleagues don't want to go on record because we have a terrible
  16. track record of meddling in the Middle East. They don't want their name associated with this when it doesn't turn out well. But Congress cannot be bothered with its
  17. constitutional duty because for many in this chamber it's easier to simply allow someone else's sons and daughters to be sent to combat without their vote. Well,
  18. that was Congressman Thomas Massie of the great state of Kentucky on the floor of the House of Representatives where because he along with Democratic Representative Ro Khanna introduced a
  19. War Powers Resolution in regard to this conflict in Iran, there was a debate on the floor of the House of the Repre- House of Representatives this evening,
  20. so this afternoon really. Congressman Massie, you just came off the floor. Thank you so much for joining us. Hey, thanks for having me on. Yeah, absolutely. I want to get your
  21. sense of what the mood was like in the chamber. Such a consequential debate, such a consequential conflict. Uh you know, it it does obviously feel sort of
  22. doomed to failure. I hate saying that. Senate is voting right now. Seems like it's going to fail in the Senate, but inside the chamber itself, what was the mood? What was it like, Congressman?
  23. Well, this is the culmination of an effort that Ro Khanna and I undertook this summer. We actually wrote this bill when the first attack on Iran
  24. incidentally, they said we had destroyed their capacity to make a nuclear weapon and some people are offering that now as the reason for this recent attack, but
  25. in any case, we didn't offer this War Powers Resolution in the summer because it was over with almost as quickly as it started, but in this case it looks like
  26. we're in for you know, we've we've even been told by the Secretary of Defense this could go four, six, eight weeks. And so it and if
  27. they're telling you six or eight weeks, that could become six or eight months and that could become years. We've seen that happen before in these wars in the
  28. Middle East. So, we thought it was timely to bring this bill up. We were able to force a vote and a debate on it.
  29. I really don't think it's doomed to fail. Um I saw today my colleague Warren Davidson, Republican, joining me and the
  30. margin is so slim here. If every Democrat were to vote for this and Warren Davidson and I vote for it, um it could pass, I think. So, it's
  31. going to come down to attendance and it's also going to come down to some of the Democrats and whether um they're going to go along with it with
  32. the majority of Democrats and vote for this War Powers Resolution. But it was a very somber tone in there. This is not one of those debates where you crack
  33. jokes or make light of things because we've already lost six soldiers in this war and we've already spent billions of dollars and people know this is a
  34. serious matter. And you know, the the president would have to obviously overcome a the Senate and the House would have to overcome a presidential veto, right? In
  35. all likelihood if you managed to pass both chambers. Not looking great in the Senate. Um so, it it is ultimately probably not going to
  36. convince the the president, right? Is is that the case, Congressman? Yeah, that's the case. Um it >> Who's been slamming you as you know, I don't need to remind you of that.
  37. He's been He told Real Clear Politics that you were you know, you're just you're doing your thing, Congressman Massie. Well, I'll have to go find that. Every time he attacks me, we raise about $50,000
  38. online. So, we you know, checking my watch, we need an attack here pretty soon. And I you know, I I am
  39. half-heartedly saying that you know, tongue in cheek. Um I would prefer he not attack me. It makes my re-election harder, but I'm going to do the right
  40. thing here in Congress regardless. And you're right, procedurally, that if this were to succeed in the House and the Senate, the president could veto it and
  41. go on his way. Constitutionally, the way this should happen is one of my colleagues should come to the floor and offer a declaration of war. Now, I might
  42. undertake that myself hoping that it wouldn't pass just to do it the constitutional way because in that case it requires a
  43. a positive vote and you're it's not overriding a veto. Kind of we've got that backwards since 1973 in the War Powers Resolution which which itself is
  44. probably constitutionally flawed. Um but at least here's what we did. We had a debate today and you know, I asked what's the reason? Why are we going to
  45. war? And I did elicit some members who are for this war on the Republican side to come up and give some of the reasons.
  46. And so, at least we got that out of it and at least we're going to get a record of on the vote and as you saw in that snippet, my
  47. I have a theory that my colleagues don't want to go on the record on this. We dragged them kicking and screaming into this debate and into this vote which
  48. will happen tomorrow. They don't want to go on the record because we really have a very poor track record in the Middle East. We can't really point to Syria or
  49. Iraq or Afghanistan or Libya and say that there's you know, a modern day Thomas Jefferson you know, rose to the
  50. occasion after we toppled a regime and you're not going to have that here in Iran either. Look, it's a theocracy and
  51. the president himself said that you know, his second and third choice got blew up in the attack that it was so successful. Well, I'm going to presume
  52. what he meant was he he blew up the second and third in line to the Ayatollah and that he was happy to have another Ayatollah as long as he could
  53. get one he could deal with. So, this also is not about enabling you know, the the advocates for freedom in Iran who
  54. don't want to live under a radical theocracy, who would prefer to live under a republic like ours. Do you get the sense from any of your Democratic colleagues who are lining up
  55. behind this? I saw Hakeem Jeffries saying, "Well, Libya was different cuz Nancy Pelosi was getting some heat for saying, 'Oh, it's it's Obama can do what
  56. he was doing in Libya back at the time.'" And Hakeem Jeffries was like, "That's different. That's different." Do you get the sense that some Democrats are very glad that you and Congressman Khanna are picking this fight so that
  57. they probably wouldn't be so happy if you introduced a declaration of war, Congressman. They they might actually vote for it. I know that we it might put them in a tough
  58. spot. Look, um I don't like to question the motives of my colleagues, but there are some Democrats
  59. um who frankly would probably prefer this war if they had their president in the White House and there are some Democrats who don't want to have to take
  60. this vote and there are some Democrats, while I'm impugning their motives, who are just doing this to get in Trump's way and I want to you know, okay. Now
  61. I'll take a pause and I won't return to impugning their motives. Maybe those were their motives, but I want to let you know when when we had the war in Libya or the attack in Libya, I wasn't
  62. in Congress at the time, but I was here for the 2013 vote on Syria which never happened. Obama said that he would come to Congress and get authorization if we
  63. were going to have a full-blown war in Syria. And what happened is there was no support among the American people and when they tried to get a positive vote
  64. to authorize a war in Syria, it they pulled the vote because it wasn't going to succeed. Now, he undertook some you
  65. know, behind the scenes covert activities that weren't even known to Americans for quite a while. But I've been the same, whether it's whether it's
  66. Syria, I wasn't here for the vote in Afghanistan and Iraq, but let me remind you they did vote and they in a positive
  67. way. It wasn't one of these war powers resolutions, it was an AUMF and somebody came to the floor and said we should do this and enough people agreed and they agreed in the Senate and
  68. it and that's how that happened and so I just, you know, we do have some fair-weather patriots and fair-weather constitutionalists. I don't care how you
  69. get to the foot of the cross as long as you get there. If you're anti-war today and we can succeed then I welcome you to the cause. Well said. Now, Mike Johnson,
  70. Speaker of the House of course, has claimed this vote is dangerous, that your resolution would be dangerous and it's a frightening prospect because his argument is that the commander-in-chief,
  71. President of the United States, needs to have this authority. So I guess my question then is what should presidential war power look like in this high-tech age? It's not 1973
  72. and distance is less meaningful. Do we need to change the War Powers Resolution to fit the spirit of the Constitution and and Article 1 to begin with,
  73. Congressman? Well, let me unpack some of that. So Mike Johnson's arguments today sound like his arguments against the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
  74. That, you know, he said it would be too dangerous. Uh, but the coincidence here is that I teamed
  75. up with Ro Khanna on the Epstein Files Transparency Act as well. Uh, I would love to see Mike Johnson make those arguments about presidential power if it
  76. weren't our party in power. The you know, it's just not going to happen. He would find a reason on that day to say that we need to follow the Constitution.
  77. Uh, as far as the War Powers Resolution of 1973, it is fundamentally flawed. Uh, because there there's a Supreme Court
  78. decision that happened since then that calls into question whether you can um whether you can stop a war without the
  79. president's signature. So there two the War Powers Resolution says that you can either introduce a concurrent resolution
  80. between the House and the Senate or a joint resolution between the House and the Senate. One of them needs the president's signature, the other one does not. When they passed the 1973 War
  81. Powers Resolution, they envisioned that it could be a resolution of the type that I have introduced that only passes
  82. the House and the Senate and then the president has to abide to it. It's not presented to him. But there was a Supreme Court case in 1983, INS versus
  83. Chadha, that said you have to present everything to the president for it to be legally binding. And so it changed the the structure of the War Powers
  84. Resolution. If we were to succeed using the path that I have taken, it would set up a very important constitutional question that
  85. may have to go to the courts, whether the president would be able to veto it or whether he would have to be able to sign it or not even.
  86. Before I let you run, Congressman, I looked up the quote that I was thinking of from RealClearPolitics. Trump told them, this was the other night, Thomas Massie is now losing his election by 35
  87. points. I wouldn't rely too much on him or any of them. We're having a big victory and we are taking the nuclear weapon concept away from Iran. Your
  88. response, Congressman? Well, he I love I'm doing better in the polls than he said last time. Like he said I was at 9% the last time he tweeted.
  89. Obviously, I'm not at 9% if I'm losing by 35, but I'm not losing by 35. In spite of having $5 spent against me
  90. by the Republican Jewish Coalition and then another million dollars funneled by AIPAC to my opponent's coffers, I'm still on top. It like the I
  91. have the grassroots support in Kentucky and what's ironic, it's not even ironic, it should just be apparent to everybody
  92. now that these donors, the Republican Jewish Coalition and AIPAC, they don't really represent Jewish people. They represent the military-industrial
  93. complex and sort of um banking and rich billionaires and they are opposed to me for two reasons. It's
  94. not because I voted against a big beautiful bill, it's because I pushed the Epstein Files Transparency Act through and threatened a lot of their
  95. friends, exposed a lot of their friends. I mean, these guys are even in the in the files themselves and that's not an
  96. implication of guilt. I'm just saying they they travel among these people in the Epstein files, the Epstein classes Ro Khanna calls them and I've like to
  97. call it that as well. Uh, but they're also very much for war in the Middle East and you know, I say that AIPAC
  98. isn't really even an Israeli lobby, it's a military-industrial complex lobby and the only people who are winning right now in this war with
  99. Iran. Look, it's ignited the region. It hasn't brought stability, it's brought instability. You've got what were nations that sort of get along with each
  100. other. You know, they're like, what the what the hell, bro? You just blew up my refinery. Like things are burning, ships are burning, people who were in commerce
  101. are no longer in commerce and the only people that are benefiting from any of this are folks like Raytheon and Lockheed Martin and the people making
  102. those drones and the anti-missile batteries. Mm. Thomas Massie of the great state of Kentucky, one of the good ones. Thank you so much for taking the time on a
  103. very busy day, sir. Thank you very much for having me on and for covering this very important topic. What the hell, bro? You just blew up my
  104. refinery. >> [laughter] >> Just Thomas Massie's impression of the Gulf States? In our interview [clears throat] today, great to talk to Thomas Massie.
  105. I have a policy with, you know, as every journalist should, with politicians that you're you have to always be skeptical
  106. of people in positions of power. I've interviewed Thomas Massie going back almost 10 years at this point and you could probably tell from that interview
  107. I am pretty impressed with Massie's consistency across the board. He's obviously very polarizing and controversial to many people in MAGA world right now who believe he's
  108. subjugating the party's interests to his pet causes. Maybe some people would say to his own interests, but you know, again, having I think the first time I
  109. interviewed him was probably 2017. So having covered him for a while, this is his these are all his sincerely held beliefs and we are wildly out of
  110. step with the framers' intention for war powers. I don't care who is president of the United States, it's also become much, much easier to launch a war. And
  111. that's I was glad to talk to him a little bit about that because it is true that it's different now than it was in 1973, than it was in the in 1789, than it was in 1812
  112. because obviously technology has shrunk the globe and made borders less and less or made distance, I should say, less and
  113. less salient in this concept because you can fly drones, you can launch missiles, nuclear technology and the like. So interesting, interesting conversation
  114. with Congressman Massie.