MASSIEFLIX

Massie Introduces Articles of Impeachment Against Defense Secretary Hegseth

Sep 15, 2026 · 1:17:50 hegsethimpeachmentwar-powersiranvenezuelafloor-speech

Seventy-eight minutes on the House floor: Massie introduces eight articles of impeachment against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth — unlawful war in Iran, War Powers violations, boat strikes, the Maduro raid, and the war in Yemen.

Original by C-SPAN on YouTube ↗ · Is this yours? Claim credit →

Play from here

Chapters

  1. 0:00 Privileged recognition
  2. 1:05 Article 1: Unlawful war
  3. 8:13 Article 2: War Powers 5(c)
  4. 14:22 Article 3: War Powers 5(b)
  5. 24:07 Article 4: Targeting laws
  6. 38:34 Article 5: Boat-strike killings
  7. 53:27 Article 6: Suppressing speech
  8. 1:03:21 Article 7: Maduro kidnapping
  9. 1:10:06 Article 8: War in Yemen

Transcript

Download captions

Click any timestamp to jump to that moment.

495 lines
  1. For what purpose does the gentleman from Kentucky seek recognition? >> Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2 A1 of rule 9, I seek recognition to give
  2. notice of my intent to raise a qu a question of the privileges of the house. The form of the resolution is as follows.
  3. >> [clears throat] >> impeaching Peter Brian Hegsathth, Secretary of Defense for high crimes and
  4. misdemeanors. Resolved that Peter Brian Hegsath, Secretary of Defense, also referred to as Secretary of War by the administration is impeached for high
  5. crimes and misdemeanors and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate. Articles of impeachment exhibited by the
  6. House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America against Peter Brian Hegsth,
  7. Secretary of Defense in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors. Article one, waging war in contravention
  8. of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, section 2C. The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall
  9. have the sole power of impeachment and that civil officers of the United States, including the Secretary of Defense, shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of
  10. treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors and misdemeanors. In his conduct while Secretary of Defense,
  11. Peter Brian Hgseath in violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and in violation of his constitutional duty to
  12. take care that the laws be faithfully executed, especially with regard to the Commission of War has abu abused the powers of the Department of Defense in
  13. that the declare war clause of the United States Constitution, article 1, section 8, clause 11, vests in Congress
  14. the exclusive of initiatory powers of war. While the military administrative and clemency clause of the United States Constitution, article 2, section two,
  15. clause one, establishes the president as the commanderin-chief of the armed forces, and vests in him operational control over wars lawfully authorized by
  16. Congress in an effort to statutoily delineate the circumstances under which the president may introduce United States armed forces into hostilities
  17. absent congressional authorization. The 93rd Congress of the United States enacted into law House Joint Resolution 542, the War Powers Resolution of 1973,
  18. Public Law 93-148, by overriding the veto of President Richard Nixon. Peter Brian Hegsth in his
  19. capacity as Secretary of Defense has executed unlawful orders in contravention of section 2C of the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
  20. Section 1541C of Title 50, United States Code. Section two provides that quote the constitutional powers of the
  21. president as commander-in-chief to introduce United States armed forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the
  22. circumstances are exercised only pursuant to one a declaration of war two specific statutory authorization or
  23. three a national emergency created by attack upon the United States its territories or possessions or its armed forces," unquote. The War
  24. Powers Resolution further expressly provides that nothing contained therein shall be construed as granting any
  25. authority to the president to introduce United States armed forces into hostilities which the president would not otherwise possess in the absence of
  26. the resolution. Accordingly, the reporting and termination procedures subsequently established by the resolution do not themselves constitute
  27. affirmative statutory authorization to commence hostilities. Rather, the introduction of the United States armed forces into hostilities must rest upon
  28. one of the authorities or circumstances identified in section 2C in order for a conflict to be considered lawful. With
  29. respect to United States armed forces being entered into hostilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran on February 28th, 2026, Secretary Hegsth directed
  30. and caused United States armed forces to be introduced into hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran. Notwithstanding that one, Congress had
  31. not declared war against the Islamic Republic of Iran. Two, Congress had not enacted any specific statutory authorization for the introduction of
  32. United States armed forces into hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran. And three, no national emergency had been created by an attack
  33. by the Islamic Republic of Iran upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. Furthermore, no imminent attack upon the
  34. United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces existed, as affirmed in the March 17, 2026 resignation letter of Joe Kent,
  35. then director of the National Counterterrorism Center in which he stated, quote, I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in
  36. Iran. Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation. The introduction of United States armed forces into hostilities against the
  37. Islamic Republic of Iran therefore satisfied none of the circumstances expressly identified in section 2C of the war powers resolution and was
  38. undertaken from its inception without congressional authorization or independent article 2 authority thereby rendering both the initial introduction
  39. of United States armed forces into hostilities and all subsequent actions taken thereafter unlawful. Secretary Hexath nevertheless knowingly
  40. executed and implemented the unlawful order to commence such hostilities, employing powers, personnel, weapons, and resources of the Department of
  41. Defense to initiate military action against another sovereign nation in violation of section 1541C of title 50, United States Code.
  42. Secretary Hegsth abused the powers of his high office through the following means. one, executing an unlawful order to commence hostilities despite the
  43. absence of a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization, or a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories
  44. or possessions, or its armed forces. two, continuing to employ the personnel and resources of the Department of Defense in these hostilities after their
  45. unlawful initiation and in the continued absence of any subsequent declaration of war or specific statutory authorization by Congress. Through these actions,
  46. Secretary Hegth knowingly executed and implemented unlawful orders to initiate war against a foreign nation, notwithstanding the absence of
  47. congressional authorization, an attack upon the United States, giving rise to the national emergency contemplated by law, or an imminent threat requiring
  48. immediate defensive action, thereby substituting unlawful executive action for the constitutional and statutory judgment of Congress.
  49. In all of this, Secretary Hegsth has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Secretary of Defense and subversive of constitutional government to the
  50. great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States of America. Wherefore, Secretary of Defense
  51. Peter Hegsth by such contact conduct has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to the Constitution if allowed to remain in office and has acted in a
  52. manner grossly incompatible with his duties and the rule of law. Peter Brian Hegsath thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office and
  53. disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States. Article two, waging
  54. war in contravention of the war powers resolution of 1973, section 5C. The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall
  55. have the sole power of impeachment and that civil officers of the United States, including Secretary of Defense, shall be removed from office on
  56. impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. In his conduct while Secretary of Defense, Peter Brian
  57. Hegsth, in violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care
  58. that the laws be faithfully executed, especially with regard to the Commission of War, has abused the powers of the Department of Defense in that the
  59. declare war clause of the United States Constitution, article 1, section 8, clause 11, vests in Congress the exclusive initiatory powers of For while
  60. the military administrative and clemency clause of the United States Constitution, article 2, section two, clause one, establishes the president as
  61. the commanderin-chief of the armed forces, and vests in him operational control over wars lawfully authorized by Congress in an effort to statutoily
  62. delineate the circumstances under which the president may introduce United States armed forces into hostilities absent congressional authorization.
  63. The 93rd Congress of the United States of America enacted into law House Joint Resolution 542, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 by overriding the
  64. veto of President Richard Nixon. Secretary Hegsth carried out unlawful orders and continues to do so in contravention of section 5C of the War
  65. Powers Resolution of 1973. Section 1544 C of title 50 United States Code. Section 5C of the War Powers
  66. Resolution of 1973 provides that at any time that United States armed forces are engaged in hostilities outside the
  67. territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization. Such forces shall be
  68. removed by the president if Congress so directs by concurrent resolution. With respect to the United States armed forces being engaged in hostilities in
  69. the Islamic Republic of Iran pursuant to section 5C, the House of Representatives and the Senate agreed by the yays and nays to a concurrent resolution
  70. directing the president to remove United States armed forces from unauthorized hostilities in Iran. House Concurrent Resolution 86 of the 119th Congress. The
  71. House agreed to this concurrent resolution on June 3rd, 2026, and the Senate agreed to it on June 23rd, 2026,
  72. marking the first successful passage of such a legislative vehicle by both chambers of Congress in the history of the United States. In response, and
  73. without lawful cause or excuse, Secretary Hegsth continued to direct the United States Armed Forces into hostilities with the Islamic Republic of
  74. Iran. On June 26th, 2026 and continues to do so in violation of section 1544 C of title 50 United
  75. States Code. Secretary Hegsath abused the powers of his high office through the following means. one directing, authorizing, and
  76. sustaining hostile United States military actions in Iran after both chambers of Congress agreed to House Concurrent Resolution 86, thereby
  77. disregarding Congress's express and lawful direction that the United States armed forces be removed from such hostilities. two, failing and refusing
  78. to take all necessary steps within his authority as Secretary of Defense to withdraw United States armed forces from hostilities in Iran. Three, directing
  79. the Department of Defense to ignore the duly agreed concurrent resolution, thereby substituting the judgment of the executive branch for the constitutional
  80. and statutory judgment of Congress and nullifying Congress's exercise of its war powers. Through these actions, Secretary Hegsth knowingly executed and
  81. sustained unlawful orders that treated the executive branch as possessing authority to determine when war may be
  82. consent commenced, how it long it may be sustained, and whether Congress's directive to terminate hostilities must be obeyed. By
  83. implementing these orders, he effectuated in practice the unilateral continuation of military operations against Iran despite Congress's
  84. exclusive constitutional authority to declare war and despite Congress's formal action directing the removal of United States armed forces from
  85. hostilities. This abuse of office frustrated Congress's ability to exercise its most
  86. solemn constitutional responsibility, enabled the continuation of unlawful war, and ignored and thus nullified the fundamental safeguard designed to
  87. prevent United States armed forces from being used at the will of the executive alone. In all of this, Secretary Hegsath has acted in a manner contrary to his
  88. trust as Secretary of Defense and subversive of constitutional government to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest
  89. injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegsth, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a
  90. threat to the Constitution, if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with his duties and the rule of law. Peter Brian
  91. Hgsth thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under
  92. the United States. Article three, waging war in contravention of the war powers resolution of 1973, section 5B. The Constitution provides
  93. that the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment and that civil officers of the United States, including the Secretary of
  94. Defense, shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. in his conduct while
  95. Secretary of Defense, Peter Brian Hegth, in violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and in violation of his
  96. constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, especially with regard to the Commission of War, has abused the powers of the
  97. Department of Defense in that the declare war clause of the United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11, vests in Congress, the
  98. exclusive of initiatory powers of war. While the military administrative and clemency clause of the United States Constitution, article 2, section two,
  99. clause one, establishes the president as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and vests in him operational
  100. control over wars lawfully authorized by Congress in an effort to statutoily delineate the circumstances under which
  101. the president may introduce United States armed forces into hostilities absent congressional authorization. The 93rd Congress of the United States
  102. enacted into law House Joint Resolution 542, the War Powers Resolution of 1973, Public Law 93-148,
  103. by overriding the veto of President Richard Nixon. Secretary Hegsth carried out unlawful orders and continues to do
  104. so in contravention of section 5B of the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Section 1544B of title 50 United States
  105. Code. Section 5B of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 provides that within 60 calendar days
  106. after a report is submitted or required to be submitted to Congress by the President of the United States upon the executive introducing United States
  107. armed forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances.
  108. whichever is earlier. The executive shall terminate any use of the United States armed forces unless Congress has declared war or has enact enacted a
  109. specific authorization for such use of the United States armed forces, has extended by law such 60-day period, or
  110. is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Section 5B further provides that absent a formal congressional
  111. declaration of war, specific statutory authorization for the use of military force, or an extension of the 60-day period enacted into law during that
  112. period. quote, "Such 60-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional 30 days if the president determines and certifies to the Congress
  113. in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of the United States armed forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in
  114. the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces. with respect to the United States armed forces being entered into hostilities in
  115. the Islamic Republic of Iran and indicating reliance on and felty to the war powers resolution of 1973 as legal
  116. justification for entering United States armed forces into hostilities with Iran without the initiatory authority of Congress. President Donald J. Trump
  117. transmitted on March 2nd, 2026 a letter informing Congress of action taken consistent with the War Powers Resolution Public Law 93-148
  118. pursuant to 50 USC 1543A3 public law 93-148 section 4A887
  119. statute 555 and 50 USC 1543B public law 93-148 section 4B 87 statute 555"
  120. unquote. And concerning hostilities that had commenced in Iran on February 28th, 2026. In the 60-day period following
  121. said transmission, Congress did not and still has not enacted any declaration or specific statutory authorization for the
  122. use of United States armed forces in hostilities against Iran or extended the applicable 60-day period by law despite remaining physically capable of meeting
  123. and carrying out its constitutional responsibilities. Moreover, President Donald J. Trump did not submit the written certification required to invoke
  124. the additional 30-day withdrawal period by May 1, 2026. Even assuming the president had valid validly invoked that
  125. separate and limited 30-day extension, it would likewise have expired on June 1st, 2026 without lawful cause or excuse. And
  126. despite the executive's initial observation of the reporting requirements under section 4A of the war powers resolution section 1543 A3 of
  127. title 50 United States Code through the president's transmission to Congress of a letter acknowledging the commencement of the statutory timeline. Secretary
  128. Hegsth continued to direct, authorize, and sustain the use of United States armed forces in hostilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran after the
  129. expiration of every potentially applicable statutory period. Secretary Hegsth continued such hostilities after the 60-day period expired on May 1st,
  130. 2026 and after June 1st, 2026, the date on which even the maximum per possible additional 30-day withdrawal period
  131. would have expired despite the absence of a declaration of war specific statutory authorization or extension enacted by Congress.
  132. Secretary Hegsth further contravened the limited purpose of any such additional 30-day withdrawal period by directing United States armed forces to continue
  133. engaging in hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran in a manner calculated not to terminate the unauthorized use of such forces and
  134. bring about their prompt removal, but rather to continue prosecuting the war to pursue additional military objectives not authorized by Congress and has
  135. therefore directed ed the Department of Defense in violation of section 1544B of title 50 United States Code. Secretary
  136. Hegsath abuse the powers of his high office through the following means. [clears throat] One, directing, authorizing, and sustaining hostile United States
  137. military actions in Iran after the expiration of the 60-day period established under section 5B of the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
  138. despite the absence of a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization, or an extension enacted by Congress. Two, continuing to direct and sustain
  139. hostilities in Iran in the pursuit of additional military objectives during and after the expiration of any potentially applicable additional 30-day
  140. period. Notwithstanding that such 30-day period could be used only when required by unavoidable military necessity
  141. respecting the safety of the United States armed forces in the course of bringing about their prompt removal as certified as necessary by the President
  142. of the United States. A certification never transmitted to Congress by President Donald J. Trump pursuant to section 1544B of title 50 United States
  143. Code. three, failing and refusing to take all necessary steps within his authority as Secretary of Defense to terminate the unauthorized use of United
  144. States armed forces and promptly withdraw such forces from hostilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Four, directing the Department of Defense to
  145. treat the mandatory termination requirement as discretionary, thereby sustaining the judgment substituting the judgment of the executive branch for the
  146. constitutional and statutory judgment of Congress and nullifying the express command that the unauthorized use of United States armed forces shall be
  147. terminated. Through these actions, Secretary Hegsth knowingly executed and sustained unlawful orders that in practice displaced the constitutional
  148. and statutory judgment of Congress by permitting the executive branch to determine when war may be commenced, how
  149. long it may be sustained, whether statutory deadlines govern unauthorized hostilities must be obeyed, and whether a war may continue after the expiration
  150. of every period permitted by law. In all of this, Secretary Hegsth has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Secretary of Defense and subversive of
  151. constitutional government to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest entry of the people of the United States. Wherefore,
  152. Secretary of Defense Peter Hegsth by such conduct has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to the Constitution if allowed to remain in office and has
  153. acted in a manner grossly incompatible with his duties and the rule of law. Peter Brian Hegset thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and
  154. enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. Article four, ignoring laws that
  155. minimize civilian casualties. The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment and that civil officers of the United States, including
  156. the Secretary of Defense, shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, in
  157. his conduct as Secretary of Defense, and in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the Office of Secretary of Defense, and to the best of
  158. his ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United states and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that
  159. the laws be faithfully executed especially during the commission of war. Peter Brian Hegsathth has abused the powers of the department of defense in
  160. that using the powers of his office. Secretary of Defense Peter Hegsath directed the Department of Defense in a
  161. manner that resulted in the death or injury of more than 200 civilians at the Shajare Taab
  162. Elementary School in Minab Hormoshan Province, Iran. He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that
  163. affected the systemic deterioration and removal of Department of Defense infrastructure that Congress has mandated by law to limit collateral
  164. damage to civilians and non-military objects during military operations. While doing so, Secretary Hegsth also
  165. cultivated a war- makingaking culture at the Department of Defense, which he boasts as being dismissive of quote stupid rules of engagement unquote, with
  166. preference for quote maximum lethality, not tepid legality, unquote. Such combination chilled and rendered
  167. ineffective components of the Department of Defense responsible for preventing, mitigating, and responding to civilian harm. By directing the Department of
  168. Defense in a manner that foreseeably dismantled the safeguards necessary to distinguish civilian objects from military objects, Secretary Hegsth
  169. thereby effectu affected the murder of civilians and abused the trust of men and women under his command by requiring them to conduct military operations
  170. within a targeted and legal review system that he had deliberately degraded. This undermined the integrity and diplomacy of the United States and
  171. its armed forces. He thus ignored and injured the interests of the nation. Secretary Hegsth engaged in this scheme
  172. or course of conduct through the following means. One, Secretary Hegsth will willfully disregarded and acted to defeat the
  173. requirements of section 184 of Title 10, United States Code by systematically dismantling civilian protection infrastructure in that a Secretary
  174. Hegsath submitted a legislative proposal to Congress on May 29th, 2025 requesting a repeal of section 184 of Title 10,
  175. United States Code. the statutory requirement for civilian protection systems at the Department of Defense, even as Congress had fully funded such
  176. systems for fiscal year 2025 and fiscal year 2026. And after Congress did not enact the requested repeal, Army
  177. officials nevertheless confirmed that such civilian harm mitigation activities had been halted. B. Secretary Hegsth
  178. immediately stalled and reversed implementation of the Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Action Plan and rendered in effective the Civilian
  179. Protection Center of Excellence despite it being congressionally mandated by section 1082 of the James M. Inhof
  180. National Defense Authorization Act, public law 117-263 and section 936 of the John S. McCain
  181. National Defense Authorization Act, public law 115-232. SE C.
  182. Secretary Hegsth eliminated funding for the Army's casualty tracking database, the institutional system for recording and verifying civilian harm reports. So
  183. that should civilians be harmed as a result of the United States military action, there would be no functioning system within the Department of Defense to review, verify, and report on such
  184. harm. D. Secretary Hegsth willfully refused to ensure that DoD components received adequate resources to satisfy the
  185. civilian harm mitigation and response uh uh staff assigned I'm sorry
  186. the requirements including by removing more than 90% of civilian harm mitigation and
  187. response staff assigned to combatant commands. E. Secretary Hegsth failed by the end of fiscal year 2025 to satisfy
  188. any of the 11 objectives or complete 133 actions mandated by Congress for the prevention and mitigation of civilian harm during armed conflict. thereby
  189. rendering every such component of the Department of Defense's civilian harm prevention apparatus partially or totally ineffective by the time the
  190. United States military combat oper operations against Iran began in early 2026. Two, Secretary Hegsth removed without
  191. reason or cause the senior most judge advocates general of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, thereby undermining independent legal oversight of combat
  192. operations and legal advice to commanders on the law of armed conflict. Three, Secretary Hegsth promulgated the 2026
  193. National Defense Strategy with all references to civilian protection omitted, marking a deliberate and unprecedented departure from prior
  194. defense policy that had recognized in accordance with law civilian harm mitigation as a strategic priority. Four. Hegs has from the outset of his
  195. tenure instigated a departmental culture hostile to the law of armed conflict and the protection of civilians through his public and repeated denigration of rules
  196. of engagement as quote stupid quote politically correct and quote overbearing in that a on September 30th
  197. 2025 while addressing the largest assembled gathering of United States generals and admirals in American history. Secretary Hegsth boasted that
  198. we, the United States military, quote, don't fight with stupid rules of engagement," unquote. B. Upon lawfully
  199. renaming the Department of Defense, the Upon unlawfully renaming the Department of Defense the Department of War, on September 5th, 2025, he poetically
  200. proclaimed, quote, "Maxim lethality, not tepid legality. violent effect, not politically correct," unquote. C. During
  201. his confirmation hearing on January 14th, 2025, he told the Senate Armed Services Committee he had quote, "thought very deeply about the balance
  202. between legality and lethality, ensuring that men and women on the front lines have the opportunity to destroy with and close the enemy, and that lawyers aren't
  203. the ones getting in the way." Five. Secretary Hegsth undermined effective journalistic oversight by expelling the
  204. traditional Pentagon press corps and imposing credentiing rules that restricted journalists from soliciting or publishing unapproved materials,
  205. thereby weakening independent reporting on civilian harm and on matters affecting the welfare and safety of United States service members by
  206. journalists most familiar with the Department of Defense. These actions were not isolated administrative or rhetorical choices. Taken together, they
  207. degraded the personnel, institutional systems, independent legal review, and civilian pro protection safeguards upon which the Department of Defense relies
  208. to verify the current status of proposed targets, distinguish civilian objects from military objectives, reassess targets as
  209. circumstances change, and prevent or mitigate civilian harm. The foreseeable consequences of Secretary Hegs scheme manifested in the
  210. United States strike on the Shajare Tayar Bay uh
  211. elementary school which killed and injured more than 200 civilians and exposed systemic failures in the Department of Defense targeting process.
  212. The events of that strike and the reported events leading to it are as follows. One, on the morning of February 28th, 2026, at approximately 9:45 a.m.
  213. local time, the United States, in partnership with Israel, launched Operation Epic Fury, commencing the 2026 Iran War. Within the first hour of the
  214. USIsraeli offensive into southern Iran, three BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from the United States Navy warships impacted the
  215. elementary school between 10:23 and 10:45 a.m. local time. too. Because the war was commenced midm morning on a
  216. Saturday, the first day of the Iranian work week, students were in attendance at the school. Despite an attempted evacuation at the school at the time of
  217. the first cruise missiles impact between 170 and 267 students were present in the facility, most of whom were girls
  218. between the ages of 7 and 12 years. three. Whereas it's unclear how many casualties were inflicted by the first impact which caused partial destruction
  219. of the structure and the collapse of its roof, it is reported that the students were then sheltered in a prayer room deeper in the facility waiting for rescuers when a second and third missile
  220. in rapid succession impacted the building. reported four reported death tolls from the strikes on the elementary school indicate that at least 156
  221. civilians were killed with some reports suggesting that civilian death tolls surpassed 170. Those killed include at least 120 school children, 26 teachers,
  222. seven parents attempting to evacuate their children, a school bus driver, a pharmacy technician from a nearby clinic, and the six-month-old unborn
  223. child of one of the teachers also killed in the attack. An estimated 95 other individuals were wounded. Under United
  224. States military doctrine and the law of armed conflict, which Secretary Hegsth is obligated to uphold, the lawfulness of an attack does not depend solely on
  225. whether civilians were deliberately selected for the purpose of harming them. The obligations of distinction, target verification, and feasible
  226. precaution require military decision makers to determine in good faith that an object is lawful military objective
  227. on the basis of information reasonably available at the time. A failure to undertake the verification and review required by those obligations may render
  228. an attack unlawful. a failure directly caused by Secretary Hegs demand dismantling of key infrastructure designed to prevent such errors. With
  229. respect to the strike on the elementary school, those institutional failures manifested in systemic non-compliance with Department of Defense targeting
  230. doctrine and legal guidance. The strike on the Shajare Taya Bay Elementary School was not an isolated
  231. targeting failure divorced from the conduct of Secretary of Defense. Nor can Secretary Hegs conduct be dismissed as a single targeting error or isolated
  232. failure in the fog of war. The elementary school was struck after Secretary Hegsth sought to repeal congressionallymandated civilian protection requirements, dismantled the
  233. department civilian harm mitigation infrastructure, removed the seniormost judge advocates general responsible for independent legal oversight, stripped
  234. civilian protection from the national defense strategy, and publicly denigrated legal restraints on military force as obstacles to maximum lethality.
  235. He thereby weakened nearly every institutional safeguard designed to minimize civilian casualties inflicted by the United States military, and then
  236. presided over a targeting process in which a functioning elementary school was struck three times, killing and wounding more than 200 civilians, mostly
  237. children. Such conduct re reflects not merely a failure of judgment, but an extraordinary abuse of powers entrusted to the Secretary of Defense and a
  238. profound disregard for the civilians his department was obligated to protect and the service members he was entrusted to lead. In all of this, Secretary Hegsth
  239. willfully and systemically refused to comply with laws and directives mandated for the protection of civilians during
  240. the Commission of Armed Conflict, Chilled and rendered ineffective such components to prevent and mitigate harm to civilians and therefore foreseeably
  241. affected the death and injury of over 200 civilians to the manifest entry of the United States. Wherefore, Secretary
  242. of Defense Peter Hgsth by such conduct has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to civilians, the lawful conduct of United States military operations,
  243. the integrity and credibility of the United States armed forces and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office and has acted in a manner grossly
  244. incompatible with his duties in the rule of law. Peter Brian Hegsath thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office and disqualification to hold
  245. and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States. Article five, extrajudicial killings.
  246. The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment and that civil officers of the United States, including
  247. the Secretary of Defense, shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. In
  248. his conduct as Secretary of Defense, Peter Brian Hgsth, in violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and in
  249. violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, especially with regard to the Commission of War, has abused the powers
  250. of the Department of Defense in that using the powers of his office, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegsth directed the Department of Defense in a
  251. manner that resulted in the extrajudicial killings of at least 221 persons aboard seagoing vessels alleged to be smuggling narcotics in the
  252. Caribbean Sea and the Eastern Pacific Ocean, principally in international waters. He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that chilled
  253. independent legal review within the Department of Defense, constructed a purported legal basis for the use of military force without constitutional or
  254. statutory authorization, and displaced long-standing precedent and codified marine time law enforcement practices
  255. that are jurisdictionally assigned to the Coast Guard and law enforcement agencies by substituting in such place the use of summary lethal force. force
  256. by Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps elements. While doing so, Secretary Hegsth over also oversaw orders denying quarter and failing to
  257. provide rescue, including secondary strikes against shipwreck survivors who were or to combat, and the abandonment
  258. of shipwreck survivors at sea, thereby endangering members of our armed forces in future military engagements by
  259. encouraging adver adversaries to subject American service members to the same treatment. By subjecting persons merely suspected
  260. of criminal conduct to lethal military force without judicial process without congressional authorization and without establishing a lawful basis for treating
  261. such persons or vessels as military targets. Secretary Hegsth arrogated to himself and the executive branch the roles of judge, jury, and executioner
  262. and asserted a unilateral power to determine who may live and who may die. Such a power is foreign to the rule of law, repugnant to the legal traditions
  263. and fundamental values of the United States and the Western world. And contrary to the United States law and customary international law, this
  264. conduct undermined the integrity and credibility of the United States and its armed forces, damaged the diplomatic standing of the United States, and
  265. injured the interests of the nation. Secretary Hegsathth engaged in this scheme or course of conduct throughout through the following means.
  266. One, Secretary Hegsth authorized strikes beginning on September 2, 2025 without authorization from Congress pursuant to
  267. article 1, section 8, clause 11 of the United States Constitution and in the absence of a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization for the
  268. use of military force, or a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces, as
  269. provided in chapter Chapter 33, Title 50, United States Code. Secretary Hegsth ordered and oversaw the strike campaign against seagoing vessels alleged to be
  270. struggling smuggling narcotics in international waters comprising at least 63 separate attacks, 44 in the Eastern
  271. Pacific Ocean, 17 in the Caribbean Sea, and two in unspecified locations, which struck 67 vessels and killed at least
  272. 221 individuals. In doing so, Secretary Hegsth displaced the statutory framework established by sections 70503
  273. and 70504 of Title 46, United States Code, uni under which Congress expressly treated maritime narcotics offenses,
  274. including conduct occurring on the high seas, as federal crimes subject to apprehension, prosecution, and trial in an appropriate United States District
  275. Court and instead treated such offenses as predicates for lethal military targeting. Secretary Hegsth disregarded
  276. the statutory restrictions in sections 274 and 275 of title 10 United States Code governing direct participation by
  277. members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps and civilian law enforcement activities, including federal narcotics enforcement by
  278. employing lethal military force against persons suspected of drug trafficking. Absent any congressional enacted
  279. authorization for the use of military force or other stat statutory authorization for such direct military action. Secretary Hegsth disregarded the
  280. maritime enforcement framework established by sections 102 and 522 of title 14 United States Code as well as
  281. section 279 of title 10 United States Code under which only the Coast Guard is authorized to conduct interdiction, search, seizure and arrest. and he did
  282. so by directing members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps to employ lethal military force in place of the law enforcement processes.
  283. Three, Secretary Hegsath established targeting guidelines for such strikes on August 5th, 2025 by issuing execute
  284. order directing the use of United States military force against persons alleged to be members or affili affiliates of certain quote designated terrorist
  285. organizations unquote as follows. A Secretary Hegth established guidelines that
  286. used quote designated terrorist organizations unquote as a targeting charact category. Notwithstanding, that term is not a congressionally created
  287. designation conferring authority to use military force. Did not require positive identification of any targeted person,
  288. but instead required only reasonable certainty that such person was a member or affiliate of a designated designated terrorist organization. a
  289. threshold lower than the near certainty standard requ established for drone stri strikes as sus on suspected al-Qaeda militants during the congressionally
  290. authorized global war on terror and did not require the presence of weapons or narcotics on targeted vessels alleged to
  291. be smuggling narcotics in association with a quote designated terrorist organization unquote four secretary
  292. hegsath in the course of such such strikes oversaw orders resulting in the denial of quarter 2 and the failure to provide timely rescue for shipwrecked survivors
  293. of initial strikes, including on September 2nd, 2025. During the first strike of the campaign, the United
  294. States Navy attacked a seagoing vessel carrying 11 persons between the coast of Venezuela and nearby Caribbean nation of Trinidad and Tobago. The strike
  295. destroyed and capsized the vessel. Approximately 45 minutes later, while two survivors clung to the wreckage, a second strike was ordered, killing both
  296. survivors. In doing so, Secretary Hegsath has endangered members of our armed forces in future military
  297. engagements by dis by encouraging adversaries to subject American service members to the same treatment.
  298. On December 30th, 2025, United States Southern Command attacked three vessels approximately 400 nautical miles
  299. southwest of OOS, Guatemala in the eastern Pacific Ocean, killing three persons and leaving eight others shipwrecked. Although the campaign had
  300. been underway for approximately four months, no recovery assets had been prepositioned to rescue survivors. Rescue assets did not arrive until
  301. approximately 45 hours after the strikes, by which time all eight shipwreck survivors had died at sea. In
  302. doing so, Secretary Hegsath has endangered members of our armed forces in future military engagements by encouraging adversaries to subject
  303. American service members to the same treatment. Five, Secretary Hegsathth took actions to preempt, constrain, and overcome
  304. independent legal objections within the Department of Defense concerning the lawfulness of such strikes, including
  305. Secretary Hegsth removed the senior most judge advocates general of the Army, Navy, and Air Force without stating a reason or cause, thereby foreseeably
  306. chilling the exercise of independent legal judgment by judge advocates tasked with advising military command. commanders on the lawfulness of combat
  307. operations and subsequently stating at a Pentagon press conference on February 25, 2025, he did not want military
  308. officers, military lawyers to serve as quote roadblocks to orders that are given by a commander and chief unquote.
  309. Secretary Hegsth employed an inter agency group of lawyers comprising four career officials and four political appointees from the Department of
  310. Defense, the Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Central Intelligence Agency, the White House, and the Office of Legal Counsel to develop a classified
  311. memorandum purporting to establish a legal basis for such strikes, and to address anticipated objections to their execution, falsely asserting that the
  312. United States is engaged in non- international conflict with 24 Latin American designated terrorist organizations, thereby attempting to
  313. displace the governing law enforcement framework as established in paragraph 2 and substitute an armed conflict framework for the conduct of military
  314. operations against such organizations despite the absence of congressional authorization for such military action. Notwithstanding that, pursuant to Little
  315. V. Barum 1804 and utility air regulatory group va 2014, an executive branch legal
  316. memorandum cannot enlarge authority conferred by Congress or legalize conduct otherwise unauthorized by statutes. The strikes do not constitute
  317. hostilities within the meaning of chapter 33 of title 50 United States Code because they do not place United States personnel in danger presumptively
  318. on the basis that such vessels are incapable of self-defense. A pred a predicate that would likewise mean that any military action conducted by drone
  319. or any air strike against a target lacking air defense capabilities could also not constitute hostilities. and the
  320. designated terrorist organizations are engaged in armed conflict against the security forces of allied nations including Mexico and such violence is
  321. financed through cocaine trafficking such that the strikes may be characterized as attacks against cocaine shipments and the deaths of persons
  322. aboard targeted vessels as collateral damage. A rationale inconsistent with the execute order targeting guidelines
  323. described in paragraph three, which did not require narcotics to be present aboard a targeted vessel and instead authorized targeting based on designated
  324. terrorist organization membership or affiliation. Secretary Hegsth abused the authority and trust in vested in him as Secretary
  325. of Defense, not only by directing the unlawful use of lethal military force, resulting in the summary execution of at least 221 persons in international
  326. waters, but also by using his office to compel members of the armed forces to carry out such operations under false legal authorities that he caused to be
  327. constructed and imposed on the chain of command. In denying quarter and refusing rescue, Secretary Hegsathth endangered
  328. members of the United States armed forces in future military engagements by encouraging adversaries to subject American service members to such
  329. treatment. Secretary Hegth further endangered United States law enforcement personnel by substituting lethal military targeting for the established
  330. maritime law enforcement practices of interdiction, search, seizure, arrest, and prosecution. by demonstrating that vessels merely suspected of narcotics
  331. trafficking may be destroyed and their occupants killed rather than interdicting and arresting. Secretary
  332. Hegsth foreseeably increase the likelihood that a per that persons aboard such vessels will perceive future encounties with United States
  333. authorities as threats to their lives and respond with lethal force rather than surrender. In this manner, his conduct not only endangered the persons
  334. unlawfully targeted by the strike campaign, but also made lawful enforcement of United States narcotics laws at sea more dangerous for the Coast
  335. Guard and other federal personnel charged with carrying them out. In all of this, Secretary Peter Hegsth has acted in a manner contrary to his trust
  336. as Secretary of Defense and subversive of constitutional government to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of
  337. the people of the United States of America. Wherefore, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegsith, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a
  338. threat to civilians and the laws of war, the integrity of the United States diplomacy and the Constitution, if allowed to remain in office, and has
  339. acted in a manner grossly incompatible with his duties and the rule of law. Peter Brian Hegsth thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from
  340. office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. Article
  341. six, suppressing free speech. The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment and that civil
  342. officers of the United States, including the Secretary of Defense, shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or
  343. other high crimes and misdemeanors. In his conduct while Secretary of Defense, Peter Brian Hgsth, in violation of his oath to support and defend the
  344. Constitution of the United States and to well and faithfully discharge the duties of his office, abuse the powers entrusted to him by retaliating against
  345. a member of Congress for cont for constitutionally protected speech and attempting to subject a member of a
  346. coordinate branch of government to executive branch punishment for the exe exercise of his legislative and oversight responsibilities in that on
  347. November 18th, 2025, Senator Mark Kelly, a retired United States Navy captain and National Aeronautics and Space
  348. Administration astronaut who flew 39 combat missions during the First Gulf War and who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate
  349. Intelligence Committee, appeared in his official capacity as a senator in video addressed to members of the United States Armed Forces concerning the
  350. unlawful strike campaign against vessels suspected of narcotics trafficking in international waters, stating, quote, "Our laws are clear, you can refuse
  351. illegal orders," unquote. Despite such a statement being consistent with decisions in United
  352. States versus Kenan 1969 and United States versus KI 1973, Secretary Hegsth weaponized the
  353. Department of Defense to retaliate against and intimidate Senator Mark Kelly for such a statement. Secretary Hegsth did so despite the fact that
  354. Senator Kelly is a sitting United States senator who cannot fulfill fulfill his role in representative government if he
  355. fears executive branch reprisals for expressing his views. As the Supreme Court held in Bond versus Floyd 1966,
  356. representative government requires that legislators be given the widest latitude to express their views on issues of policy. Members of Congress, moreover,
  357. enjoy speech or debate immunity under article 1, section six, clause one of the United States Constitution. and
  358. Senator Kelly as a retired service member is entitled to the full breadth of First Amendment protection.
  359. Using the powers of his office, Secretary Hegsth retaliated against and sought to intimidate United States Senator Mark Kelly for his statement
  360. through a scheme or course of conduct intended to interfere with Congress's constitutional authority to oversee the executive branch, grossly expand Article
  361. 2 power at the expense of both the legislative and judicial branches of government, and establish a precedent that would chill protected speech of
  362. millions of retired United States service members and inflict irreparable harm upon their First Amendment freedoms. Secretary Hegsth engaged in
  363. this scheme or course of conduct through the following means. On November 24, 2025, the Department of
  364. Defense through a social media post on X threatened that Senator Mark Kelly could be recalled to active duty for court marshal proceedings or administrative
  365. measures for his statement. On November 25, 2025, Secretary Hegsth directed the Secretary of the Navy to review Senator
  366. Kelly. On January 5, 2026, Secretary Hegsth issued a secretarial letter of censure against Senator Kelly for saying
  367. you can refuse illegal orders, saying he would quote always defend the Constitution," unquote. questioning the
  368. legality of military operations as a member of the Senate Armed Services and Intelligence Committees, criticizing military leadership, Hegathth, for
  369. surrounding themselves himself with quote yesmen," unquote, and accusing Secretary Hegsth of war crimes. In a
  370. letter in the letter of censure, Secretary Hegsth also threatened Senator Kelly with criminal prosecution or
  371. further administrative action, including the reduction of Senator Kelly's retired military grade should the senator
  372. continue to question the legality of military operations or criticize Secretary Hegsth. in response to a January 12th, 2026
  373. complaint filed by Senator Mark Kelly against Secretary Hegsth for retaliating against and intimidating the senator for his first amendment protected speech.
  374. Secretary Hegsth filed a memorandum of opposition to Senator Kelly's motion for preliminary injunction egregiously
  375. asserting that A. Senator Kelly as retired naval officer has diminished First Amendment protections. B. Department of Defense actions against
  376. Senator Kelly's constitutional rights due to his statements relating to military affairs and his being a retired naval officer constitute non-judic
  377. juditiable military personnel decisions. C. Secretary Hegsth's opinions supersede the court's jurisdiction on determining
  378. whether the government could censure, threaten, and financially punish Senator Kelly because of his speech. and D. Senator Kelly is required to exhaust
  379. military administrative remedies before seeking relief in an article 3 court, thereby seeking to place the adjudication of Senator Kelly's
  380. constitutional rights within military processes controlled by the executive branch. Thus, in addition to abusing the powers
  381. of the office of Secretary of Defense for politically motivated reprisal against Senator Kelly for the senator's criticism of conduct implicating
  382. potential war crimes, Secretary Hegsth grossly violated or sought to violate the separation of powers by attempting to subordinate both the legislative and
  383. judicial branches in manners concerning constitutional rights to the authority of the Department of Defense. In the same effort, Secretary Hegs
  384. sought without precedence to extend to retired service members the diminished first amendment protections appable to active duty service members
  385. under Parker versus Levy 1974, including retired service members serving in Congress and exercising constitutional
  386. oversight over the military. He further asserted in substance that the military rather than article 3 courts possesses
  387. supremacy to determine the constitutional rights of civilians and to adjudicate whether its own actions conform to the Constitution and the laws
  388. of the United States at minimum with respect to the speech of retired service members. Such position being in flagrant conflict with Marbury versus Madison
  389. 1803 which holds that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is not
  390. the military. The result of such effort, had Secretary Hegsth been successful, would have
  391. subjected the speech and congressional oversight activities of nearly 20% of the current Congress and whatever portion of future Congresses may consist
  392. of retired service members as well as the speech of millions of other retired service members to the will and discretion of the Department of Defense
  393. without any immediate avenue of recourse outside the Department to vindicate their constitution. utional rights. Such a result would constitute one of the
  394. most extraordinary expansions of executive branch power in the history of the United States. In all of this, Secretary Hegsth abused the powers of
  395. the Department of Defense by retaliating against and attempting to intimidate a sitting United States senator through threats of punishment for speech
  396. protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. and in an effort to deter that senator from fulfilling his constitutional role in
  397. overseeing the executive branch. In doing so, Secretary Hegsth weaponized the Department of Defense to chill a core function of the legislative branch,
  398. encroach upon the constitutional role of the judicial branch by seeking to insulate such retaliation from meaningful judicial review, and through
  399. the precedent he sought to establish, placed the First Amendment rights of millions of United States veterans at risk of irreparable harm. Wherefore,
  400. Secretary of Defense Peter Hegsth by such conduct has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to the Constitution and the separation of powers if allowed
  401. to remain in office and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with his duties, the rule of law, and the constitutional liberties entrusted to
  402. his protection. Peter Brian Hegsth thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and
  403. enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. Article 7, kidnapping of a sovereign foreign
  404. leader. The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment and that civil
  405. officers of the United States, including the Secretary of Defense, shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or
  406. other high crimes and misdemeanors in his conduct of the Office of Secretary of Defense, and in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully
  407. execute the Office of Secretary of Defense. and to the best of his ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and in
  408. violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed especially during the Commission of War. Peter Brian Hegsth
  409. has abu abused the powers of the department of defense in that using the powers of his office, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegathth directed the
  410. department of defense to carry out an unprecedented military operation codenamed absolute resolve to capture
  411. and kidnap President Nicholas Maduro, the leader of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and his wife Celia Flores.
  412. from Venezuela. An act of war against a sovereign country executed under the guise of narcotics law enforcement,
  413. though in actuality intended to assert US control over Venezuela's oil reserves. In doing so, he gambled the
  414. lives of Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps personnel in order to facilitate the illegal taking of
  415. national oil to wit. Immediately following such attack, Secretary Hegsth appeared alongside President Donald J. Trump
  416. during which the president announced in reference to Venezuela, "We're going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper, and judicious
  417. transaction. So, we don't want to be involved with uh having somebody else get in." And we have the same situation that we had.
  418. We're going to run it essentially. and quote, "We're going to have our very large United States oil companies, the biggest anywhere in the world, go in and
  419. start making money, and we are ready to stage a second and much larger attack if we need to do so." Thus revealing the motives behind the
  420. forcible removal of President Maduro, which extended far beyond the narcotics law enforcement rationale on which the operation was falsely predicated. On
  421. January 3rd, 2026, Secretary Hegsth directed the United States Armed Forces into hostilities in and around Caracus,
  422. Venezuela, employing more than 200 United States special operations personnel on the ground, and more than 150 aircraft and drones, including
  423. fighter aircraft, bombers, armed helicopters, and electronic warfare aircraft supported by a substantial naval force that include included the
  424. Ewaima Amphibious Ready Group and the Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group which together penetrated Venezuelan
  425. territory, suppressed and destroyed Venezuelan air defenses, struck multiple targets in the Caracus area, inserted an
  426. armed ground force into Caracus to seize Maduro, successfully kidnapped Maduro, killed at least 83 people, including
  427. several civilians, and caused seven American casualties. In doing so, Secretary Hegsth executed unlawful
  428. orders affecting the removal of the president of a sovereign nation, placed boots on the ground, conducted preparatory bombardments, inflicted
  429. substantial casualties, and subsequently caused regime change, each of which constitutes an act of war. Secretary
  430. Hexth executed unlawful orders violating article 1, section 8, clause 2 of the United States Constitution by ordering
  431. United States armed forces to commit acts of war against Venezuela without a declaration of war by Congress against such nation and making rules concerning
  432. captures on land, a power specifically vested in Congress, where Congress had made no rules authorizing or otherwise applicable to such operation.
  433. and Secretary Hegsth executed unlawful orders in contravention of section 2C of the War Powers Resolution of 1973,
  434. section 1541C of title 50, United States Code by entering United States armed forces into hostilities in Venezuela on
  435. January 3rd, 2026 without a declaration of war, a specific statutory authorization or a national emergency
  436. created by attack upon the United states, its territories or possessions or its armed forces. Through these actions, Secretary Hegth
  437. knowingly directed United States armed forces into hostilities against a sovereign nation without clear constitutional or specific statutory authority, employing military force of a
  438. nature and magnitude rising to the level of constitutional war. In doing so, Secretary Hegsth usurped Congress's constitutional authority over war and
  439. transformed the Department of Defense into an instrument for objectives extending far beyond the apprehension of Nicholas Maduro for purposes of
  440. narcotics law enforcement, including regime change and the acquisition of foreign oil. In all of this, Secretary Hegsth abused the powers of the
  441. Department of Defense, violated the laws and treaty obligations of the United States, and subordinated the constitutional allocation of war powers
  442. to executive objectives neither authorized nor approved by Congress. Wherefore, Secretary of Defense Peter Hgse by such conduct has demonstrated
  443. that he will remain a threat to the Constitution and the well-being of the United States military personnel if allowed to remain in office and has
  444. acted in a manner grossly incompatible with his duties and the rule of law. Peter Brian Hgsth thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from
  445. office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. Article
  446. 8, unlawful war in Yemen. The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall have the sole
  447. power of impeachment and that civil officers of the United States, including the Secretary of Defense, shall be removed from office on impeachment for
  448. and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. In his conduct while Secretary of Defense, Peter Brian Hegsth, in violation of his
  449. oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully
  450. executed, especially with regard to the Commission of War has abused the powers of the Department of Defense in that using the powers of his office,
  451. Secretary of Defense Peter Hgsth directed the Department of Defense in a manner leading to the deaths of of estimated 224 civilians as well as
  452. approximately 500 to 600 Hoodi fighters through the initiation and direction of operation rough rider. The operation
  453. comprised more than 1100 strikes against targets in Yemen over approximately 52 days. In less than eight weeks there were nearly as many civilian deaths in
  454. Yemen as the United States state military actions had caused in that country during the preceding 23 years. Secretary Hegsth initiated and directed
  455. those hostilities in the absence of any of the predicates required in section 2C of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 for
  456. the president to introduce United States armed forces into hostilities. Moreover, Secretary Hegsth acknowledged the absence of any imminent threat to the
  457. United States, further undermining any assertion article 2 authority to initiate such hostilities with congressional authorization.
  458. Secretary Hegsth without congressional authorization. Secretary Hegsth initiated and directed Operation Ruff
  459. Rider without congressional authority pursuant to article 1, section 8, clause 11 of the United States or statutory
  460. authorization in that Secretary Hegsath executed unlawful orders in contravention of section 2 C of the War
  461. Powers Resolution of 1973, section 1541C of title 50, United States Code by entering ing and sustaining United
  462. States Navy and Air Force personnel into hostilities in Yemen between March 15th and May 6th, 2025 without a declaration
  463. of war, a specific statutory authorization, or a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions,
  464. or its armed forces. Secretary Secretary Hegsath executed unlawful orders in contravention of section 4A of the War Powers Resolution
  465. of 1973, section 1543A of title 50, United States Code by continuing to direct United States armed forces into
  466. hostilities in Yemen after March 17, 2025, despite the President of the United States having failed to notify Congress
  467. of such hostilities within 48 hours of their commencement as required by section 4A and notwithstanding that the president did not transmit such a report
  468. to Congress until March 28th, 2025, thereby further undermining any possible article 2 authority for the continued
  469. hostilities, especially during such 13-day period. Outside of the requirements to engage in hostilities pursuant to the war powers resolution of
  470. 1973, Secretary Hegsth directed Operation Ruff Rider in the absence of any imminent threat requiring military action without
  471. prior congressional authorization, as evidenced by a leaked signal chat involving Secretary Hegsth concerning the potential execution of Operation
  472. Ruff Rider in which several Several senior United States government officials, including Secretary Hegsath, each possessing
  473. unfettered access to military and intelligence information, advised there was no immediate need to enter United States armed forces into hostilities in
  474. Yemen, thereby asserting there was no imminent threat to the United States, its possessions, or its armed forces, including Vice President JD Vance stating, quote,
  475. "There is a strong argument for delaying a month," unquote. Then acting chief of staff to the National Security Adviser, Joe Kent,
  476. stating, "There is nothing time-sensitive driving this timeline. Will have the exact same options in a month." Unquote. Central Intelligence
  477. Agency Director John Ratcliffe stating quote, "A delay would not negatively impact us and additional time would be
  478. used to identify better starting points for coverage on Houthi leadership." Addressing the timing of Operation Ruff
  479. Rider, Secretary Hegsef himself stated, quote, "We can easily pause." unquote. And addressing the vice president's
  480. concerns regarding Operation Ruff Rider's immediate commencement, Secretary Heg says stated, quote, "VP, I understand your concerns. Two immediate
  481. risks on waiting. One, this leaks and we look indecisive. Two, Israel takes action first or Gaza ceasefire falls
  482. apart and we don't get to start this war on our terms." The I'm sorry. and we don't get to start this on our own terms. This is not about
  483. the hoodies rea reestablishing deterrence which Biden cratered unquote. Thus, Secretary
  484. Hegsth knew there was no imminent threat to the United States, its territories or possessions or its armed forces. As had
  485. such a threat existed, there would have been no basis for him to state that quote we can easily pause unquote. Moreover, the only immediate risks
  486. identified by Secretary Hegsth concerned media optics and Israeli affairs rather than the direct affairs of the United States of America, the nation to which
  487. his oath is sworn. In all of this, Secretary Hegsth abused the powers entrusted to him as Secretary of Defense by subordinating the constitutional
  488. limits on the use of military force and the laws governing the conduct of hostilities to his own policy objectives. Notwithstanding his
  489. knowledge that no imminent threat to the United States existed and demonstrated a profound disregard for civilian life, the rule of law, the constitutional
  490. authority of Congress, and his duty to ensure the lawful conduct of the United States Armed Forces. Wherefore,
  491. Secretary of Defense Peter Hegsth by such conduct has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to civilians. the lawful conduct of United States military
  492. operations, the integrity and credibility of the United States armed forces, and the Constitution, if allowed, to remain in office, and has
  493. acted in a manner grossly incompatible with his duties and the rule of law. Peter Brian Hegsth thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from
  494. office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States. I yield
  495. back.

Comments

You have to be logged in. A comment stays up until three different people flag it. Then it comes down. Nobody on our side reads the queue.

Log in with a passkey to comment. No password.