Politics news and discussion on TalkFuse.
Andy McCarthy on the Hegseth Impeachment
Conservative legal commentator Andrew McCarthy argues that Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth should be convicted on some impeachment charges, including for military strikes on suspected drug boats and efforts to discipline Senator Mark Kelly. His agreement with critics on those issues is notable because he is a conservative national security lawyer who is more sympathetic to the war on drugs.
The article says McCarthy considers the killings in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific indefensible, arguing drug trafficking is a crime to be handled through courts, and that the administration has not shown the boats carried drugs bound for the US. He also says Hegseth’s actions towards Kelly amounted to unlawful command influence and an effort to suppress congressional criticism. McCarthy does not back conviction over the Iran war, while the author argues Hegseth helped shape that policy and should be accountable for carrying out illegal orders; the article says Representative Thomas Massie has filed impeachment charges.
In short
- McCarthy backs convicting Hegseth over drug boat strikes.
- He also cites Hegseth’s treatment of Senator Mark Kelly.
- The author argues Hegseth should answer for his role in the Iran war.
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of conviction could argue that lethal strikes on suspected traffickers without publicly demonstrated evidence or judicial process violate basic legal safeguards, and that using military authority against Senator Kelly risks suppressing Congress’s oversight role. They may also contend that a defence secretary must be accountable for unlawful orders and policies he helps shape, including the Iran war.
The case against
Opponents could argue that the strikes were a security response to suspected trafficking and that the government may hold evidence or operational reasons it cannot publicly disclose, while insisting any disputed conduct should be judged through established legal and congressional processes. They could also say Hegseth’s actions towards Kelly were intended to address conduct they viewed as improper, not to silence lawful criticism, and that responsibility for the Iran war should not automatically be assigned to him absent clear evidence of individual wrongdoing.