Botched Hegseth impeachment may have handed Democrats a sharper weapon: legal expert

The failed attempt to impeach Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth may have been “a blessing in disguise” for Democrats, according to a prominent legal scholar.

House Republicans scuttled Rep. Thomas Massie’s articles of impeachment Wednesday, but law professor Claire Finkelstein argued in a new column for The Guardian that a traffic jam and Democratic disorganization could allow the incoming majority to come back with stronger charges in the new Congress.

“A more targeted set of articles in the new Congress might stand a better chance of success,” Finkelstein wrote.

Four of Massie’s articles focused on the Iran war, accusing Hegseth of violating war powers and failing to protect civilians, but Finkelstein noted that presidents of both parties have ignored Congress on war powers for decades.

“Inclusion of the first four articles of impeachment, however, might ultimately have backfired in the Senate, and maybe even in the House in the final vote,” she wrote.

Massie’s articles did not even mention Signalgate, where Hegseth shared Yemen strike plans in a Signal chat that accidentally included The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief, and Finkelstein described that as “one of the worst cases of mishandling classified information ever to occur by a higher-level official in the defense department.”

Hegseth has since used polygraph tests to hunt for leakers and fired Lt. Gen. Brett Sylvia – and Finkelstein argued that could blow back on himself.

“Yet the secretary himself, or at least his lax practices, may well have been the source of some of the very leaks he is investigating,” Finkelstein wrote.

The second is the military strikes on civilian boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific.

“This use of U.S. military force has been virtually unanimously condemned by legal experts as an indisputable violation of the laws of war, or, more accurately, as murder,” she wrote.

The third is the Pentagon’s campaign against Sen. Mark Kelly over a video reminding troops they can refuse illegal orders. Finkelstein, who filed a brief supporting Kelly, said the attack was unpopular with Republicans, too.

She also floated a fourth article over Hegseth’s firing of top military lawyers, writing that “Hegseth has sought to undermine fidelity to the rule of law and the role of lawyers in reviewing military operations.”

The bigger prize, the University of Pennsylvania professor argued, is subpoena power. An impeachment inquiry could force release of the Office of Legal Counsel memo justifying the boat strikes and put its authors under oath. It could also probe Adm. Frank Bradley, who she said “took the hit himself for certain of the boat strikes in a likely attempt to protect Hegseth.”

She expects Hegseth to claim executive privilege, and said lawmakers should not back down.

“Congress must work to cut these outsized claims of presidential authority down to size,” she wrote.

Democratic leaders, she concluded, “must play their cards carefully and keep their eyes on the prize — long-term restoration of democratic norms and the strengthening of checks and balances in the federal government.”