Conley says she would support impeaching Hegseth
Democratic candidate for New York’s 17th Congressional District; U.S. Army veteran
“I believe he has been a hazard to American national security and a disgrace to the office. I would absolutely support removing him from office, because his actions and decisions are failing service members who have sworn an oath to this country and deserve respect, and for politicians to actually value their lives and their willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice, instead of thinking that it’s a game or some movie, like Hegseth continuously talks about.”
Source and context
Original text
About this source
Official CNN programme transcript. Dana Bash asks whether Conley would support impeaching Hegseth if elected; Conley answers, and confirms on a follow-up that she would support articles of impeachment.
Before the quotation
Dana Bash asked: “You have said Hegseth should be fired, but if you are elected, would you support actually impeaching him?”
After the quotation
Bash pressed that supporting removal “means that you would support articles of impeachment.” Conley answered: “Against Pete Hegseth … for his failure to protect America? Yes.” Conley is a candidate and holds no vote in the current House.
How this statement is classified
Case context: Should Pete Hegseth be impeached?
The label describes this statement’s response within the context above.
Why this label?
Relative to whether the House should impeach Hegseth, Conley answers an express impeachment question by supporting removal, and confirms when pressed that this means supporting articles of impeachment. The condition in the question concerns her own election, not the merits.
- Recorded on
- Published here
- People and groups discussed
- Pete Hegseth
Should Pete Hegseth be impeached?
Explore the case context, sources and public responses.
More from this case
Read the full case“Massie deserves credit for forcing Congress to confront a question too many lawmakers would rather leave blurry. America shouldn't drift into permanent war simply because presidents of either party find congressional approval inconvenient. But a serious constitutional dispute deserves the correct opponent. Massie found the fight. But like an idiot, he aimed at the wrong man.”Read statement
Free Speech For People
“In supporting Trump’s constitutional violations and actively participating in, or even initiating, the actions noted above, Hegseth has failed to faithfully discharge the duties of his office. Further, Hegseth participated in multiple unauthorized, unsecured communications on Signal with individuals who are not government employees, jeopardizing national security and demonstrating a dangerous lack of judgment. He must be held accountable for his actions.”Read statement
MoveOn
“Hegseth has shown he cannot be trusted with the power of this office and this position. Impeachment and aggressive oversight are necessary steps to stop further abuses.”Read statement