#abuse-of-office
2 entries with this tag
Days After Trump's Party Lost Both Chambers in the Midterms, Republican Rep. Thomas Massie Filed Eight Articles of Impeachment Against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth — a 34-Page Resolution Centered on Waging War Against Iran Without Congressional Authorization — and Read All Eight Aloud on the House Floor for About an Hour and Twenty Minutes, Restarting the Clock That Forces a Vote With the GOP Majority Down to 218-214; Trump Vowed to "Stand By" Hegseth Even if He's Impeached
On November 9, 2026 — less than a week after Trump's Republicans lost both the House and Senate in the midterms — Rep. Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky, introduced eight articles of impeachment against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, a 34-page resolution accusing him of high crimes and misdemeanors. The central charge is the one this archive has documented from its origins: that Hegseth helped wage war against Iran without congressional authorization and abused the powers of his office. Massie read all eight articles aloud on the House floor, speaking for roughly an hour and twenty minutes, and the filing — a re-introduction of articles he first offered in September — restarted a two-day clock that forces Republican leaders to schedule a vote. The timing and the math make it serious: with the GOP majority now down to a razor-thin 218-214, only a handful of Republican defections would be enough to impeach a sitting Defense Secretary. Hegseth dismissed the effort as "sham articles of impeachment" and defended his Pentagon record in a video; Trump said he would "stand by" Hegseth even if the House impeached him. Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries backed the push, calling Hegseth "the architect of the reckless and costly failed war of choice in Iran." That the drive is led by a Republican — and newly viable because Trump's party just lost its cushion at the ballot box — makes it a convergence of two threads this archive has long tracked: the unauthorized war, and the collapse of the political protection that shielded those who ran it.
Trump and the Justice Department Asked the Supreme Court to Erase the $83.3 Million He Owes E. Jean Carroll for Defaming Her — Arguing That Calling His Sexual-Abuse Accuser a Liar Was an "Official Act" of the Presidency He Can't Be Sued For, and Putting Government Lawyers on His Personal Defense
On July 28, 2026, Trump and the U.S. Department of Justice separately asked the Supreme Court to throw out the $83.3 million a jury ordered him to pay writer E. Jean Carroll for defaming her — when, in 2019, as president, he denied her account that he sexually assaulted her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in the mid-1990s and called her a liar. Their argument: presidential immunity. Because the Supreme Court's 2024 ruling held that "most of a President's public communications" are official acts, Trump's lawyers claim his 2019 statements branding Carroll a liar were official presidential acts for which he cannot face personal civil liability. A federal appeals court had already rejected this, affirming the award as "reasonable in light of the extraordinary and egregious facts" and finding Trump had waived any immunity claim by raising it too late. Two things make it a scandal, not just an appeal. First, the Justice Department — taxpayer-funded government lawyers — joined to defend the president's personal liability for defaming the woman a separate jury found he sexually abused. Second, the theory itself: that a president is immune from being sued for defaming his own sexual-assault victim because insulting her from the White House podium was part of the job. Trump is asking the Court to rule that the presidency is a shield not just for governing, but for smearing the people who accuse him of assault.