Thomas Massie (00:00):
... killings. There's no argument in these impeachment articles that he's ineffective. The argument here is that he's broken laws and he's violated the Constitution. And so that's the question put in front of my colleagues. Now, I understand that some of them may want to vote for this because they just want to see Hegseth gone. I'll welcome their vote if that's the reason and they choose not to read the articles of impeachment. But I would encourage people to take them very seriously. The first three articles of impeachment are centered on the 1973 War Powers Resolution. And the White House legal counsel has tried to go around these things. I'm sure they've advised the president and the vice president and even the Secretary of Defense not to use the word war. And you see their tortured use of the English language in the early days of this, they tried to not call it a war.
(00:55)
But ultimately the president calls it a war every day, he's tired of the semantics. But what he's admitting to is that puts them in violation of 1973 War Powers Resolution. They didn't meet the requirements to take action without Congress. That's the first article of impeachment. The second article of impeachment is that there was a concurrent resolution of Congress. There's no argument here. If this were in a courtroom, we wouldn't need witnesses, we wouldn't need to provide evidence. Both sides acknowledge that there was a concurrent resolution passed by the House and the Senate. And that's the prescription in the 1973 War Powers Act, to stop a war or unauthorized activity by the president if that's what Congress wants to do. Well, that's what we did and they didn't stop. So how do you litigate this? In reality, Speaker Johnson should bring a lawsuit against the executive branch.
(01:53)
What I believe the executive branch will tell you, is we know that's a law in the books and we know we're violating it, but we don't like that law. We believe it's unconstitutional in light of Chadha v. INS, which actually had very little to do with the War Powers Resolution. Congress could have reconvened in light of that Supreme Court decision, which was on legislative vetoes, and they could have struck down this law, but they didn't. The law is on the books. Pete Hegseth is obligated to follow the laws on the books, not the laws that he wants to follow. And so there's a problem there.
(02:29)
Now for the question of do they even acknowledge the 1973 War Powers Act, and that it's a law that's on the books? Well, they absolutely do, because another provision has to do with my third article of impeachment, which it says if the president and the Secretary of Defense engage in some kind of unlawful or unauthorized military activity, which would have to meet the predicates in the 1973 War Powers Act, and they don't, but let's say they did meet the predicates in the 1973 War Powers Act and they engaged in this unauthorized activity, they've got exactly 60 days to get authorization from Congress. And if Congress doesn't do anything, they have to stop.
(03:17)
Now they can ask for a 30-day extension, which they never did, and the 30-day extension only applies if you need 30 more days to get back out of the country safely with your military. Well, what is their legal argument here? Well, on day 61, they announced the war was over. They didn't need congressional authorization. The war is over, nothing to see here. But then they commenced within a couple weeks, the war again. The war was never over, there was never a legitimate stop to the war. And even the president himself acknowledges this is one continuous war, yet the legal beagles at the White House are saying when they send letters to Congress, that every time they commence another attack in Iran, they're effectively starting another military action that's unrelated to the war that's already going on.
(04:11)
Because if they did acknowledge that and didn't have this shaky legal scaffolding, then they would have to acknowledge that they're violating the law. So that's the third article of impeachment, which gets me to the fourth one. Some of you may ask Congress Massey, why didn't you impeach President Trump? Well, it looks like a lot of this has to do with things that the President directed Hegseth to do. Well, two of these articles of impeachment belong to Hegseth himself. It is true that the President is culpable by asking Hegseth to carry out these orders, but Hegseth should not carry out illegal orders and that's why we're impeaching him. But one of the articles that Hegseth took upon himself to create, articles of impeachment, is he basically took apart the function inside of the Department of Defense that makes sure they're not going to strike civilians. And the predictable and absolute result of that, was they struck all these school kids on the first day of the war.
(05:21)
Now there's something called the fog of war. Maybe you're in a battle and you don't have time to pay a lot of attention and you're shooting wherever you got to shoot. There's no fog of war on the first day. You've had months to identify these targets and pick them, yet they picked a school building on a school day with school kids in it, and then struck it again and then struck it again. So that is the foreseeable and obvious and unfortunate consequence of something Pete Hegseth did himself at the Department of Defense. Now you've also got the extra judicial killings in the Pacific and the Caribbean. They're trying to say those are police actions. Not only are they striking people without identifying them, they don't know who all those people are in the boat. They're going back and killing all the survivors. This puts our own military in danger in any kind of future military engagement. Because what will happen is we're encouraging others not to give our soldiers quarter, not to rescue our shipwrecked sailors if that should happen to our military men and women.
(06:29)
Perhaps the most ironic article of impeachment in here is the one where Hegseth abused his powers to go after Senator Mark Kelly. He tried to put the military and the executive branch above the judicial branch. He tried to intimidate a sitting US senator in spite of First Amendment protections. By the way, who's also a veteran. So this sets a bad precedent for millions of veterans to say that you don't have First Amendment rights when you leave the military. You can't say what you think. And that they're going to call you back in to the military and put you in front of a tribunal. So in doing that, Hegseth raised the military and the executive branch or tried to, above the judicial branch and above the legislative branch. Now the irony of it is he was attacking Senator Mark Kelly for saying you don't have to carry out illegal orders.
(07:23)
Well, that's the consequence of this of Hegseth ignoring Senator Kelly's advice is six of these articles of impeachment are for him carrying out illegal orders. And finally you can go back to Yemen where there was, before I get to Yemen, which is the last one, let me talk about Venezuela.
(07:45)
I feel sorry for the lawyers at the White House. They construct, like somebody goes in there and says, "Twist the law, do whatever you can. We want to go in and kidnap a foreign leader and take their oil and make some legal construct that would make this legal." Remember they had the DOJ involved. Pam Bondi was involved in this, in the press conference for this war that they say wasn't a war. Although President Trump, I think it was just yesterday, said that Hegseth's won two wars, Iran and Venezuela. So this is why I feel sorry somewhat for the lawyers at the White House. They come up with this tortured language so that maybe Hegseth won't get impeached and then the president goes out and uses all the terms the lawyers told him not to do. He commits candor. He just tells the truth and he told the truth. This is a war. This is not a police activity to interdict drugs or to stop a drug ring. It was to kidnap a foreign leader so we could take their oil.
(08:45)
And then he goes out the next day the president does, with Hegseth standing there with him saying, "Well, we did this to get the oil, and now a bunch of our big corporations are going to get really rich off of this oil. So yay for us." And then finally on Yemen, we got a glimpse into something you almost never get. Because the vice president, the Secretary of Defense, the CIA director, they're all on a Signal chat and they include a reporter. Oh my gosh, wouldn't you love to see some of these Signal chats? But here's one you get to see now. And what do we find out? That unanimously, everybody on that signal chat agreed there was no imminent, including Hegseth himself who said they could pause at any time, agreed there was no imminent threat that would justify the president going in front of Congress and taking action without an authorization of use of military force or declaration of war.
(09:48)
And the consequence of that was civilians killed. And so I think those are the eight articles of impeachment as I just laid them out there. And a few other things I want to say in anticipation of your questions. An interesting fact and an interesting consequence of where we are in time in this lame duck session, is the articles of impeachment, once they leave the house, they survive into the next Senate. Every HR bill in here will die and you'll have to reintroduce it, but not these articles of impeachment. If the Senate doesn't deal with this before the end of this Senate, they're turning it over to a Democrat Senate who can then have the trials and deal with it. So my hope is that this will make it to the Senate. I don't know if we have enough votes. I have no idea. I haven't spent time on the phone calling people.
(10:47)
I'm doing this because it's the right thing to do. Everybody gets to take this vote. I suspect there may be members of Congress who want to put a little daylight between themselves in this war or themselves in this administration, who survived their election, not just what I call the retirement caucus whose membership swelled on November 3rd. I'm talking about the people who are coming back next Congress. And then in two years they're going to have to answer for a war that's gotten even worse. And if God forbid the Secretary of Defense is still in charge of it, they're going to own all of his misfortune and misdeeds. And so I would encourage my colleagues to read the eight articles of impeachment. If I'm wrong, tell me where I'm wrong. I would encourage the speaker not to try to dismiss this with a motion to table it or a motion to refer it to committee.
(11:40)
That's one thing I want to prepare everybody for. A motion to refer this to committee is a motion to kill this impeachment. So they may try to get out of an actual vote on the substance of this. We should have a vote and a rigorous debate on these eight articles of impeachment. And with that, I will take questions.
Journalists (11:59):
[inaudible 00:11:58].
(11:59)
Oh, congressman, congressman. Congressman, could you [inaudible 00:12:01]?
Thomas Massie (12:01):
I was going to let one of my staff... All right. You, sir.
Speaker 1 (12:04):
Could you put this in some sort of historical-
Thomas Massie (12:05):
I'll try to get [inaudible 00:12:06].
Speaker 1 (12:06):
... context for us? Do you think Pete Hegseth is the worst US defense secretary in history?
Thomas Massie (12:11):
He wouldn't be the only one impeached by the House. This happened in the 1800s, and I think that the gentleman resigned or something happened, maybe he went to prison, I don't know what happened, but it never matriculated to an issue in the Senate. So it's not unprecedented.
Speaker 1 (12:27):
[inaudible 00:12:29].
Thomas Massie (12:31):
Let me take another one here.
Speaker 1 (12:35):
Can I ask you about the [inaudible 00:12:35] you talk about?
Thomas Massie (12:35):
Yeah. You and then you. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (12:37):
Thank you, Congressman. Really quickly, there are rumors that libertarians are trying to recruit you for 2028 to play spoiler. Will you commit to supporting the GOP nominee in 2028?
Thomas Massie (12:47):
That's a different conversation.
Journalists (12:48):
[inaudible 00:12:50].
Thomas Massie (12:51):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (12:51):
[inaudible 00:12:52] on Iran. I went to Iran, to Minab a few months ago, and they reported on the terrible trauma and tragedy of the families whose children were ripped apart by the Tomahawk missiles. And a lot of them said they though Pete Hegseth was a war criminal. They believed this was a war crime, and that's been echoed by some very respectable American experts on the law. Would you go that far? Would you say that he is a war criminal, off the back of that terrible tragedy there in Minab?
Thomas Massie (13:14):
I did not go that far in these articles. You won't find a reference to war crimes. What I do say though, is because he's violated the international norms of war and violated our own conventions of war, he's put our own soldiers and sailors at risk. When you go back for a second kill on people who are clinging to wreckage, you're encouraging our adversaries to do the same. That's why those international laws are on the books. But I did not go that far, but I will say that he has violated the norms of war, and it's to the disadvantage and the dishonor of our country and to the danger of our soldiers in future conflicts.
Speaker 3 (13:53):
You didn't go that far, now Mr. Massie-
Speaker 4 (13:54):
Congressman Massie, the secretary Hegseth has called you a disgruntled, defeated congressman, said that your plan will not work. What's your response to that?
Thomas Massie (14:02):
Well, he's right about one thing, I'm a...
Speaker 4 (14:00):
What's your response to that?
Thomas Massie (14:02):
Well, he's right about one thing. I'm a defeated congressman. I'm not disgruntled, and we'll see if the plan works. Look, I'm being polite here. What is an impeachment? An impeachment is just firing somebody, really. You don't go to prison, you don't go to jail, you don't pay a fine.
(14:21)
Okay. When the Democrats get in charge, they are going to be very vicious. The one thing that I wasn't able to compel with my articles of impeachment, which is why we don't want to refer it to a committee because they won't have hearings, but the Democrats are going to have hearings. They won't have just eight articles of impeachment.
(14:40)
I suspect if Pete Hegseth doesn't leave, and this is the answer to your question, will it work? I hope for his sake it does work because the Democrats are going to bring people in here who have served under him and with him, give them protection. They'll be able to say what he's actually done, the things that he has ignored, the things that he did that caused civilian casualties, the way he's ignored the laws.
(15:05)
And then there'll be a full robust trial over in the Senate. And it's not a certain thing that he would survive the Senate. Even though they don't have, what would you call it? An impeachment proof majority in the Senate, the Democrats don't. You have Republicans who are going to be compelled once there's more testimony and more hearings and more trials. And so, if working is getting him to leave a day earlier than he already otherwise would have, I think it's probably worked.
Speaker 5 (15:39):
Congressman, you said that-
Thomas Massie (15:40):
This guy's serious. He doesn't let go of that coffee for nothing.
Speaker 5 (15:44):
You said that Hegseth was following unlawful orders. You said the president is culpable. Why then, or did you consider bringing articles against the president over this war?
Thomas Massie (15:55):
I think the president needs to see, this is a metaphor, one of his horses shot out from under him and then maybe he will see things differently. I think politically it's an impossible hurdle, but also I think this is the better target. Sometimes you apply the ordinance where the best target is and the best target is Pete Hegseth.
(16:23)
One of the things that I really want out of this is to litigate whether Congress has war powers or not. I've got Republican colleagues who know I'm right on this. They're worried about the politics of it. And what I'm really trying to do here with some of these articles is litigate three provisions of the war powers resolution, and have other folks violated them as well?
(16:50)
Yeah. Not as blatantly or as egregiously as Pete Hegseth, but somebody's got to put their foot down and say, "Are we going to follow the laws that are on the books? Are we going to follow the constitution?" And the best way to do that is to have an impeachment against Pete Hegseth. I suspect, honestly, there may be Democrats who would prefer when their person is in power to not be constrained by this vote in their history.
(17:18)
Let's imagine a scenario which is not too hard to imagine after last week's shellacking where the Democrats control all three levers, the House, the Senate and the White House. I suspect, just like Bill Clinton did and Barack Obama, I suspect they're going to want to go in there and ignore Congress and use these powers. So, this is the right forum to have it and the right vote. Let me keep going this way. Yeah. Go ahead.
Speaker 6 (17:46):
Has leadership given you any indication of when they might bring this to the floor, bring this to a vote? And also just in conversations with fellow Republicans, how hard is leadership whipping this as you understand it? Are they going all out, pulling out all the stops or is this kind of more of a vote conscious?
Thomas Massie (18:04):
I suspect they whipped it before the recess and sent us home early. And maybe it was just because people didn't want to take a vote that was closely associated with the Iran war or with this administration in advance of a tough election. But now I don't know if they're whipping it or not. I mean, if they start to whip it looks desperate. I saw that the secretary has scheduled a press conference for tomorrow, if I saw that right on my way to deliver these articles.
(18:36)
I suspect they will let the secretary give his rebuttal to these articles before they have the vote. You see the leadership, as I'm sure you know, they can have the vote within two legislative days and it could take the form of a motion to table or a motion to refer it to committee or they could vote on the substance. But in any of those scenarios, they could do it. We could have the vote tonight, we could have it tomorrow, we could have it Wednesday.
(19:03)
But I would encourage them to have a vote on the substance of it. And I suspect since we saw the secretary have scheduled his own press conference that they're going to let him deliver a rebuttal. And to that point, I hope he addresses the eight articles and doesn't get up and misquote the Bible in Quentin Tarantino fashion and do some pull-ups and call everybody fat and gay for being for this impeachment. I may have just given you half his speech. I don't know.
(19:31)
But I would like to see him go through the eight articles of impeachment and just make the argument from a podium. You can use notes, get the lawyers to help you. Tell us why you are not guilty of each of these eight articles of impeachment. I hope that's what he does. And so, that's my answer to your question. When do I suspect it's going to be? I suspect it's not going to be tonight or tomorrow before the secretary speaks. Let me keep going this way.
Speaker 4 (20:00):
Why not wait until the Democrats take over? Why do it right now?
Thomas Massie (20:04):
Because people are dying and he's putting our own military at risk. By the way, I didn't wait until after the election. The speaker waited till after the election. I wanted to have this vote 10 weeks ago. And so, there's never a good time, honestly. I think the Democrats would do well to vote for this and it looks like they are going to vote for it. So, that's a question for them. What are they going to do after they take the majority? But I'll tell you why I'm not waiting until next Congress because I'm not here next Congress.
Speaker 7 (20:44):
Have any Republican House members given you their commitment that they will vote for this?
Thomas Massie (20:49):
No.
Speaker 7 (20:52):
Okay.
Thomas Massie (20:52):
A lot of them tell me they don't like Hegseth.
Speaker 7 (20:54):
Okay. If this does pass, it goes to the Senate, it's really not expected to pass there. Are you thinking that the war's just going to end if it passes in the House or that would take full conviction?
Thomas Massie (21:06):
Well, I don't know if it's going to pass the House or not. I don't have a crystal ball. You guys may have a better idea than I do if it's going to pass the House or not. What I want to see is a vote in the Senate. I want to see them go on record. They could dispose with it the way Chuck Schumer did with an impeachment resolution, I think against Mayorkas where they don't really vote on the substance. They just try to dismiss it out of hand instead of getting into a trial and having a hearing on it.
(21:38)
But as long as they have a vote over there, I think it's good and it's not the way I wanted. I didn't want us to be in the minority in the House or the Senate, but we're still in the majority. They can still do the right thing. Let me take this guy-
Speaker 7 (21:52):
Sir, if it does go that way-
Thomas Massie (21:54):
Let me take these guys.
Speaker 8 (21:55):
Thank you. So, with Susie Wiles gone and with your term expiring, you just admitted basically no Republicans are siding with you. I mean it was floated back in the day that you were considered for Department of Agriculture. Why not work with someone like Stephen Miller who might be a little more aligned with you to get a position somewhere there and do some good rather than this, which probably won't pass?
Thomas Massie (22:20):
If you follow my 14-year career, I mean I wrote the Iran resolution, the first one we voted on. Like this is at my core, this is something important to do. I don't want to be sitting at home thinking about, well, I should have done that and I didn't do it because I think this needs to be litigated. I'm not interested in a position in the administration, although it sounds like there could be a lot of them opening up. And you said that nobody is siding with me on the Republican side.
(22:53)
I suspect there are several who will. I just haven't talked to them. I'm not whipping it. It's going to be everybody's conscience and then they'll have to live with that vote and they're going to have to live with that vote two years from now if they're not part of the retirement caucus. And if they are part of the retirement caucus, what do they have to lose? I'll go this way. I'll get you.
Speaker 9 (23:15):
What do you make of the rumors that allegedly there's a push to make Pete Hegseth, the new senator from Tennessee, that Marsha Blackburn, whenever she goes to be a governor, she might appoint him? What do you think of that?
Thomas Massie (23:28):
Well, I heard a rumor that's already been promised to somebody else and that's what happens. Usually those promises are made before the races happen, not after the races happen. So, I don't think that's going to happen. Yeah.
Speaker 10 (23:42):
On the bombing of the girls' school in Iran, which is part of your departments, the White House and the Pentagon have continued to defer questions about that, citing an ongoing investigation. I'm wondering if you have reached out to anyone or had any communication with the Pentagon about an investigation into that before you introduce it in your articles.
(24:02)
And second, just wondering if you can address what we've heard from some Republicans, which is that this is very personal to you, that the secretary endorsed and campaigned with your primary opponent. Could you just address whether or not this is personal?
Thomas Massie (24:17):
Number one, it's not personal to me at all. And then the question about the school war, who do they think bombed the school? Does the White House say they think Iran bombed their own school? It's a false flag attack. I mean, obviously we hit it and you can determine what kind of missiles from the range and the kind of destruction there was. I don't think they're going to get out of that article of impeachment by saying, "Oh, we don't know who bombed that school." Although I think the president tried that for a day or two. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (24:52):
Representative Massie.
Thomas Massie (24:53):
Yeah, I'll take-
Speaker 4 (24:53):
Representative Massie.
Speaker 11 (24:55):
The president has indicated that he's going to keep Pete Hegseth in this position. The secretary is fighting this and the Senate, as you know, very unlikely to convict him even if this does pass the House. So, would you acknowledge that this is really a symbolic move that you're employing here?
Thomas Massie (25:12):
No. No, it's not symbolic.
Speaker 11 (25:12):
How is it not symbolic?
Thomas Massie (25:14):
It's not symbolic because I think a lot of people, first of all, read the eight articles. It's not a policy disagreement. It's not that I don't like the war in Iran. It's not that I don't like his style. Nobody has attacked any of these articles yet. Nobody's gone in and said this one's wrong or that one's wrong or this one's wrong or this one's poorly drafted or that one's legally wrong. So, it's not that.
(25:42)
And the other thing is the practical effect of this is everybody's wondering when Pete Hegseth is going to leave. It's not a matter of... And this is a question that does need to be asked. He is not doing a good job in addition to breaking the law and violating the constitution. He's not doing a good job. You got members of the military who know that. You got members of the House Armed Services who know that.
(26:07)
So, as I said before, if this precipitates his departure, I'm all with the White House. Don't give Massie a win. Don't let this thing pass. Let him quit or have him resign in the next day or two.
Speaker 11 (26:20):
If he stays in power and Republicans reject this, what message do you think it sends to the American public after last week's elections?
Thomas Massie (26:29):
Well, there's 435 congressional districts. A lot of the incumbents are going to be leaving, but most of the incumbents are coming back and those incumbents have to answer to their people. Every one of them has to answer that question. I think it sends a dangerous message. You've got the vice president, the president, virtually everybody, even the cheerleaders for the war are now acknowledging that they lost this election because of the war.
(26:58)
And this is the best vote you can take right now to put some daylight between yourself and the failed policy of this war in Iran and the way that it's been handled. The other articles of impeachment are important too, just to answer these constitutional questions. I mean, the answer is obvious. It's why nobody wants to debate them.
Speaker 12 (27:21):
Congressman Massie, of the eight articles of impeachment, which one do you think has the most likelihood of prevailing?
Speaker 13 (27:26):
Can you address the mic please?
Thomas Massie (27:30):
Okay, sorry. He asked of the eight articles of impeachment, which ones he thinks have the most chance of prevailing? I think the one that's on its face, clearly a violation of the law is the concurrent resolution. And so, this is like when you have a trial. There needs to be a trial on this. The Senate needs to tell us, do they think that it's either 5B or 5C of the 1973 War Powers Resolution, do they think it's a bad law? Because if they do, they need to take it off the books, but this is cut and dry...
Thomas Massie (28:00):
... Because if they do, they need to take it off the books. But this is cut and dry. They're in violation of the provision that says a concurrent resolution means that you have to stop. And then the other one, and by the way, these aren't necessarily an order of importance, but they are an order of, your question was likelihood. The other is the 60-day time limit. They've clearly gone beyond 60 days. They're clearly no longer saying this isn't one continuous war, but their lawyers are still trying to say that behind the scenes. And that needs to be fleshed out. I think that's obvious.
(28:35)
Does anybody here think this war has gone on less than 60 days? No, it's gone on more than 60 days. And nobody, unlike the provision with the concurrent resolution where they say it's been obviated, or I'm sorry, it's been antiquated by the Chadha v. INS, the 60-day provision is still there and nobody says it's unconstitutional. And every single one of you here knows it's been more than 60 days. People back home know it's been more than 60 days. So I would say on their face, those are the ones that you could win by summary judgment if you had this in front of a real courtroom.
Speaker 14 (29:13):
What's your message to the troops?
Thomas Massie (29:14):
Okay, I'll start back over here.
Speaker 14 (29:15):
Secretary Hegseth told the troops ignore the noise and to continue to perform. Do you have a message for the troops? Because they're going to be impacted by this.
Thomas Massie (29:24):
Yeah, I do. I do have a message to the troops. This secretary has used our troops to go seize oil for large corporations in America. You shouldn't be used like that. You signed up to pledge your life for this country if need be. And that obligation shouldn't be diminished to stealing oil for big corporations. I would also say that there's a reason we have rules of engagement that's not just... Secretary Hegseth says, "Okay, rules of engagement. Those get in our way. Those are too hard." I think most soldiers understand that when you get into a war, as ridiculous as it sounds, that there should be laws of war when you kill each other, there's a reason for it. If you capture the enemy, they shouldn't be summarily executed. I don't want our own soldiers to be submitted to that. So we shouldn't be engaging that kind of activity ourselves.
(30:29)
And then finally, my other message to the soldiers is active duty. One day you're going to be retired. Hopefully you make it through with your lives intact. Do you deserve a diminished First Amendment protection like Hegseth has not just implied, but said of Senator Mark Kelly, that because he served in the military before, now he can't say the same things that everybody else can say? Because the military, after you've served your years and your obligation to your country, and now you're sitting at home, they can come back, you say something on the internet and this notion that the military can grab you and pull you back in and put you in front of a tribunal without real judges, it's ridiculous. So there are at least three ways in here where I'm looking out for members of the military. I also find it offensive that Secretary Hegseth somewhere in his comments said that, "Oh, Massie has impugned the service of these members." No, the members aren't the problem. It's their leader that is the problem and they deserve a better leader than Pete Hegseth. And so that's my message to the soldiers.
Speaker 15 (31:46):
What about the commanders though Sir?
Thomas Massie (31:46):
Let me get somebody else in.
Speaker 16 (31:46):
Can I ask you about your fellow senators in Kentucky or your senators that are from Kentucky? You're going to have a new one. Congressman Andy Barr is going to be sworn in January. Rand Paul has been supportive of your efforts. Well, he's been supportive of ending the war in Iran so far. Have you talked to either of them or to Senator McConnell's team or Senator McConnell himself about this effort and where they stand on this issue of impeaching Pete Hegseth?
Thomas Massie (32:09):
I have not, but if it were possible to have a conversation with McConnell, I would like to know why he didn't vote to confirm Hegseth. So there are three senators. If you're going over and looking at the Senate, I think it was Collins and Murkowski and McConnell who did not vote for confirmation. So when you're looking at votes and could this pass the Senate or not, I think there are some votes over there and possibly I haven't talked to Senator Paul about it. He did lead the charge on extra judicial killings when Obama undertook this with drones. And so I would hope he still have the same opinion. I think he has also early on commented about the illegality of bombing these votes with suspected drug traffickers in them.
Speaker 17 (32:54):
Representative Massie, if you are really honest, how much of this is revenge?
Thomas Massie (33:01):
None of it.
Speaker 18 (33:05):
Do you agree with the vice president that the Iran war was the defining reason why Republicans lost last week? Are you talking to other colleagues in the house who feel similarly?
Thomas Massie (33:15):
I think they've diagnosed one of about six reasons they got shellacked in this election. People are more opposed to the consequences of this war than they are this war. I don't think they're particularly worried about the civil rights of people or the civilian casualties in Iran. They're worried about the price of gasoline and diesel, and in Kentucky fertilizer for fields and then in the supermarket and price of food. Those things have been driven up not just by this failed misguided war in Iran, but by the Big Beautiful Bill. That was a mistake. As I said here the night they made it over the final hurdle. I said "We're not rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic with the Big Beautiful Bill. We're setting a course for the iceberg. We're intentionally doing things that we know will cause inflation and higher interest rates."
(34:07)
So I don't think there's been a full accounting. Also, they abandoned the MAHA segment of the coalition. I sat over here in the Supreme Court and watched our Department of Justice argue that Monsanto, it's Bayer now, but their product glyphosate Roundup should be immune from any, even if it does cause cancer. Even if it does cause cancer, they should be immune. That was our own DOJ. Pam Bondi was the attorney general when that case was being tried. I suspect Susie Wiles had something to do with the president. This is the accusation from Calley Means, which I don't doubt at all, that she was instrumental somehow, and I may be mischaracterizing what he said, but I'll just say it from as if I said it myself, that her lobbying firm represents them. And so it's no mistake that the president gave a degree of immunity through an executive order. So they've alienated the MAHA Coalition. Doge got run out of here on a rail.
(35:13)
The Democrats want to, they still want to vilify Republicans for using DOGE. DOGE never really happened. Go look at the bottom line. We're spending more money than we did before DOGE. And so I think Elon Musk found it was easier to land rockets backwards and put internet on Antarctica and get cars to drive themselves than it was to get anybody in these two chambers to cut a penny of spending. And so these are the reasons they lost the election. It's not just the Iran war.
Speaker 19 (35:45):
So [inaudible 00:35:46] tweet again, and how much responsibility do you believe the vice president bears for the Iran war?
Thomas Massie (35:51):
Well, he whipped the Big Beautiful Bill, so he can't get away from that. One of the things he can try to get away from is the Iran war, but that's going to be harder and harder to do if this thing drags on. When he served as a senator, he and I talked about stopping the war in Ukraine and the futility of that and how do you wind that down? So I do believe at his heart, he's against these things. I don't know if it's just a populist notion or whatever and he sees which way the wind is blowing, but I do have reason to believe he wanted us out of Ukraine back when he was a senator. But at some point he's either with the administration or not with the administration on this.
Speaker 19 (36:37):
Do you think he should resign?
Thomas Massie (36:38):
That's up for him to decide. We're doing one impeachment at a time here.
Speaker 20 (36:45):
Thank you Congressman. Is this sort of your farewell card to the admin or do you have something else up your sleeve?
Thomas Massie (36:52):
Well, we'd like to pass the next Epstein bill. I stood here at this podium with survivors behind me and we got three million files released. I'd like to see that continue forward. By the way, these are promises that this administration made, that they would release these files, for instance, or that there would be no new wars. Yet here we are. Frankly, I'm running out of time. They took two-and-a-half weeks off the clock in advance of the elections, two weeks so I couldn't do the Epstein stuff and one day so we couldn't do the Hegseth. If I can think of anything else to do, I'll do it as long as I'm doing the right thing. Somebody over here.
Speaker 21 (37:39):
About doing other things, do you want to make a comment about Brian Cole Jr. in that case?
Thomas Massie (37:45):
I think he's innocent, but let's keep this to-
Speaker 22 (37:47):
[inaudible 00:37:48] Massie, you announced before the recess that you had 218 signatures to release the Epstein files. Is that still the case after the election?
Thomas Massie (37:55):
I think so. I mean, it's just two Democrats that we needed, not two Republicans.
Speaker 23 (38:00):
You said you didn't explicitly lay out that Hegseth, you didn't charge him with committing war crimes, but you mentioned in your resolution denying quarter, which is a war crime. You mentioned the double tap strike, which is against Geneva conventions and also is widely considered to be a war crime. If the House votes on this, is that an acknowledgement that the Department of Defense under Hegseth has conducted or committed some degree of war crimes in line with high crimes and misdemeanor standard to meet the requirement of impeachment?
Thomas Massie (38:26):
No, I don't think so. And the Senate would have to have a trial for that, but I'm not accusing him of war crimes.
Speaker 24 (38:33):
Does he have blood on his hands?
Thomas Massie (38:35):
Of course. The civilians, because he's the one who rolled back the civilian targeting protections at the Department of Defense. Absolutely.
Speaker 25 (38:48):
Congressman Matthews.
Speaker 26 (38:49):
Your goal is to try to force Secretary Hegseth out before the end of your term. Are you at all concerned that this could become a rallying crime for him in the administration?
Thomas Massie (38:59):
I don't think so. I don't know how you rally around eight articles of impeachment. It's not one or two. It's eight times he's violated the constitution or the law. And the president has got away with a lot of things that nobody else can get away with. Whereas the president today probably wears those former impeachments as a badge of honor, I don't think Hegseth gets to wear this that way. It's not the way it'll be looked at in history. All right. I'll take two more questions.
Speaker 27 (39:33):
Yeah. You said that you weren't whipping this vote together, but has there been an effort to whip this vote against you and where has the panic been within Republicans when you brought this up?
Thomas Massie (39:45):
If there's an effort to whip it against me, I haven't seen it, so don't know.
Speaker 28 (39:50):
You mentioned that if the Senate does vote on this, at least this vote would be sort of a win, but what does it accomplish? How is it a win if the Senate shoots it down-
Thomas Massie (40:02):
Well, I mean, a loss is a loss. It's not a win if they shoot it down. But I think it's important to weigh in on this issue. A few of these articles of impeachment, what's at heart here is the balance of power between the executive branch and Congress. And I think it's important for those senators to weigh in, particularly on my first three articles of impeachment, which involve war powers. Where do those war powers reside? Or in Venezuela. Do we think that any executive branch can start their own war? Obviously the constitution wasn't written for that. And so I would love to see those folks in the Senate go on record, even if it's the wrong way. In order for people to elect better people, they need to see where these people stand.
(40:56)
And this is one example, somebody asked, "Why are you doing this now? Is this just because it's the end of your term?" The reality is the time for waiting around and being polite and introducing bills and waiting six years to try to get them inside of some other bill, that time is over for me. I am trying to force a vote here on this issue because I think it's at the heart and soul of our republic, who has the war powers.
Speaker 29 (41:28):
Do you have plans to do anything after Congress remaining active or advocating?
Thomas Massie (41:34):
They say when one door closes, another door opens. I found 10 doors that have opened and my hardest problem is deciding what to do next. So I don't know what I would do. I literally haven't ruled anything out except coming back here. All right. Yes.
Speaker 30 (41:52):
If Hegseth is successfully impeached, who would you like to see going in his place and what would it mean in the immediate future for America and the military?
Press (42:00):
... [inaudible 00:42:02]?
Rep. Thomas Massie (42:01):
Well, it's not up to me. I mean, it's up to the president to decide. And if I named a name, they would probably never put that person in there.
(42:14)
But I will name a name because I suspect he doesn't want the job. I think Ron DeSantis would be great at it. I don't think he would run into the same problems that Hegseth has. Ron DeSantis is a JAG lawyer, right? He understands the legality and constitutional boundaries between the legislative and the executive branch. So he'd be great at that. But I'm only telling you his name because I think he probably doesn't want it and because I would've just jinxed him by saying his name, so ...
(42:44)
Anyways, thank you all very much for covering this. See you.
Speaker 31 (42:47):
If anybody's interested, tomorrow there will be a taxpayer uprising starting [inaudible 00:42:58]-
Rep. Thomas Massie (42:52):
[inaudible 00:43:10].
Speaker 31 (42:52):
... [inaudible 00:43:11].
Press (42:52):
[inaudible 00:43:11].
Rep. Thomas Massie (42:52):
Tell her she needs to be there shortly. [inaudible 00:43:11].
Speaker 32 (42:52):
[inaudible 00:43:11].
Speaker 31 (42:52):
Hi, how are you?
Speaker 32 (42:52):
It's good to see you.
Speaker 31 (43:11):
It's good to see you.
Press (43:11):
[inaudible 00:43:12].
Speaker 31 (43:12):
[inaudible 00:43:12]. Yeah, I don't [inaudible 00:43:13].
Rep. Thomas Massie (43:12):
I think [inaudible 00:43:13] will be familiar to these poor [inaudible 00:43:30] people.
Speaker 31 (43:12):
[inaudible 00:43:31].
Rep. Thomas Massie (43:30):
Like all of that cargo, we can buy it after it comes through the international market.
(43:33)
So my answer would be practically, I don't think you're going to get passage [inaudible 00:43:42] ships anytime soon, unless there's some kind of negotiation [inaudible 00:43:46]. In a scenario where we walk away absent any agreement, which I think [inaudible 00:43:51] better than what we're doing now, commerce would flow. It would be ... I don't know, pick your favorite country. Algeria. You know, [inaudible 00:44:03] I'm sure [inaudible 00:44:03] bringing stuff that you can [inaudible 00:44:03]. And [inaudible 00:44:05] commerce continue.
Press (44:06):
Sir, when you see what's [inaudible 00:44:11].
Rep. Thomas Massie (44:10):
No, I meant to say I know what I'm not doing [inaudible 00:44:12].
Press (44:11):
Oh, you're not doing. Okay. Sorry.
Rep. Thomas Massie (44:11):
What do you mean how far is it? People are [inaudible 00:44:16] answer you. [inaudible 00:44:16] one question and just walk away. Like [inaudible 00:44:16] would be progress from what we're doing now. So [inaudible 00:44:28],
Press (44:28):
So I'm confused. [inaudible 00:44:35] country, do you think that [inaudible 00:44:43] my ... So let me speak [inaudible 00:44:44].
Rep. Thomas Massie (44:44):
Exchange what?
(44:44)
Oh.
Press (44:57):
Exchange the secretary maybe for [inaudible 00:45:02].
Rep. Thomas Massie (45:01):
I think civilians all over the world are safer with a different Secretary of Defense.
Press (45:03):
Do you think-
Rep. Thomas Massie (45:03):
Because he's shown to be-
Press (45:03):
... the US will [inaudible 00:45:12]?
Rep. Thomas Massie (45:14):
I don't know what the engagement is with your country and I'm not [inaudible 00:45:17].
Press (45:16):
Oh, no because [inaudible 00:45:17]-
(45:17)
Congressman, you said you don't want the speaker to table this. I did ask him if he plans to do so and he said [inaudible 00:45:28].
Rep. Thomas Massie (45:29):
Did he answer whether he would table it or vote on it?
Press (45:32):
[inaudible 00:45:34].
Rep. Thomas Massie (45:34):
Okay. So a non-response. So what's your question to me?
Press (45:39):
How do you respond to his comments that he believes it would be a terrible [inaudible 00:45:43] to try to [inaudible 00:45:45] cabinet secretary [inaudible 00:45:46]?
Rep. Thomas Massie (45:46):
Well, there you have another person admitting to [inaudible 00:45:49]. So he's just admitted that they're beyond 60 days and they violated a clear provision [inaudible 00:45:56]. Like at least we're beyond ... If he's to that point, then at least we're beyond the fairy tale if these are separate military engagements and not [inaudible 00:46:04] continuously.
(46:08)
And you know, this is what Bush did in 2006 is he had the good sense to replace Rumsfeld the day after the election in the middle of the night. And if replacing the person makes this war end soon, then he needs to replace this person.
Press (46:34):
He or anyone [inaudible 00:46:35]?
Rep. Thomas Massie (46:38):
He did not. The best he could do was shut down Congress before the election.
Press (46:42):
[inaudible 00:46:42]-
(46:42)
Congressman, as an American, how do you feel about your government's failure to admit guilt and responsibility in this terrible atrocity? In every other mass civilian casualty incident in Iraq, Afghanistan, the American government's found the courage to admit it. Why has it not done so, do you think? And how do you feel about that as an American?
Rep. Thomas Massie (47:00):
Well, I think tying it back to these-