My blog posts have been less than kind to Pete Hegseth. I frequently portray him as an evil doofus, because that’s what he is (in my opinion, of course). In fact, he seems to revel in his evil doofusity. That evil doofusity has really been on display in his response to Rep. Thomas Massie’s articles of impeachment, which Hegseth has claimed do not specify high crimes and misdemeanors, but rather reflect policy disagreements and are slanderous.
I recently–like half an hour ago–posted a Substack note about the former charge. Since I’m feeling a bit lazy today, I’ll simply repeat here what I said in that note about the assertion that the articles don’t allege crimes. Then, I’ll talk briefly about Pete’s claim of slander.
Hegseth claims that the articles of impeachment filed by Rep. Massie do not specify high crimes and misdemeanors, but rather reflect mere policy disagreements. Here’s a quote from Drunkin’ Pete: “None of these are high crimes or misdemeanors – they are partisan policy disagreements from people who want to politicize our military.”
Hegseth is counting on his fanboys’ ignorance about what the articles of impeachment actually allege. For the benefit of my readers, however, I’ll recite some of the allegations in the articles.
Among other things, the articles allege that Hegseth ignored the laws of war that require efforts to minimize civilian deaths, that he used his office to direct the Defense Department to commit the extrajudicial murders of at least 221 people in the Caribbean Sea and Eastern Pacific, and that he directed the military to kidnap a foreign sovereign. Putting aside the other counts, the ones I’ve summarized here clearly allege high crimes and misdemeanors, and not mere policy disagreements.
To take the most obvious one, extrajudicial murder is murder, and, of course, it is a crime. So, believe it or not, Pete’s claim that the articles of impeachment don’t actually allege high crimes and misdemeanors is . . . wrong! (Sorry, I should have told you to sit down before reading this paragraph.)
Now, turning to Pete’s claim of slander. There are so many things to say about this. Let’s start with the good old Constitution of the United States. I know, Pete and the rest of this lawless Administration don’t care about the Constitution. Still, for the rest of us, that old framework of our government sometimes is worth considering.
Article 1, section 6, clause 1 of the Constitution is the “Speech or Debate Clause.” It states, “The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”
I have italicized the relevant provisions. Since by “slander,” Pete seems to be referring to what we lawyers call an “actionable” claim–a claim that can be the subject of a lawsuit–it’s pretty clear that Mr. Massie’s articles, which were offered for debate in the House of Representatives, can’t be “slander” because they are not actionable, meaning that if Pete brought a lawsuit alleging that Massie slandered him, a court would dismiss the suit for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Now, of course, that won’t stop Attorney General Todd Blanche (who doubles as Trump’s personal attorney) from launching a DOJ investigation of Mr. Massie, but it should assure that any such investigation leads nowhere.
Perhaps Hegseth didn’t mean that he could bring a lawsuit against Mr. Massie but rather that the articles of impeachment somehow impugn Pete’s character and reputation. The problem with that claim is that Pete has done more to impugn his own reputation than anyone could possibly do to him. I won’t go through the litany of horrific things he has done. I’ve covered many of them in other posts.
Suffice it just to say that Hegseth’s defenses to the articles of impeachment are, thus far, simply inept attempts at public relations and blatant BS.
Of course, I don’t have a lot of confidence that the impeachment effort will result in anything concrete. After Trump promoted Stephen Miller, it’s hard to believe he’ll soon be throwing Hegseth off the crazy train. And it’s difficult to believe that, even if the House votes to impeach, the Senate will convict.
But, and here I’ll take a lesson from last Tuesday, maybe we’ll be pleasantly surprised.