Oh, wait....
Posted on 01/10/2020 6:26:16 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
TOLEDO, Ohio — President Donald Trump mocked the legal requirement that Congress give consent before the United States can engage in armed conflicts, alleging Thursday that Democrats would leak sensitive national security information if it were shared with them.
At his first campaign rally of 2020 in the crucial battleground state of Ohio, Trump said he hadn't had time to call Speaker Nancy Pelosi before the killing of Iranian Gen. Soleimani, adding that "she is not operating with a full deck now." He then acted out a parody of how House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff might leak the planned killing of Soleimani to reporters.
"Schiff is a big leaker, you know, he leaks like crazy," Trump said, claiming that Democrats "want us to tell them so that they can leak it to their friends in the corrupt media."
Trump also took fresh aim on Thursday at a 2020 rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who has consistently remained near the top of Democratic presidential primary polling. The Trump campaign ratcheted up its focus on Sanders this week, blasting two back-to-back emails labeling the senator a "wealthy, fossil-fuel guzzling millionaire" who "can't be trusted to defend American lives."
Although Trump often refers to Sanders as "crazy Bernie," he has previously reserved his most stinging attacks for Democrats like former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. But on Thursday, he slammed Sanders several times, attacking the senator's health care plan and his criticism of how the Soleimani killing was carried out while seeking to paint him as a leader of the Democratic Party.
"Democrats are taking their cues from socialist Bernie Sanders," along with the group of freshman women in the House known as "the squad," Trump said. "They're the leaders of the party."
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
Everyone knows including the scumbags at NBC that if Trump had informed the rats Salami would still be alive.
“The enemedia would NEVER reveal anything that would place American lives in danger”
The “Enemedia”....Clever and fitting nickname.
BTTT
I invented it because of their behavior during the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=enemedia
“Tell a Democrat, tell the enemy.”
And its no recent development.
During WW2 Rep Andrew May (D-KY) was chairman of the House Military Affairs Committee.
During a junket to Hawaii in 1943 he was briefed by the naval station at Pearl Harbor. When he returned to DC he held a press conference and disclosed that US subs were escaping Japanese depth charge attacks by diving deeper than the Japanese thought the subs could go. The press ran with the leak and soon after the Pacific sub fleet suffered a string of 10 submarine losses.
Admiral Charles Lockwood stated “I hear Congressman May said the Jap depth charges are not set deep enough. He would be pleased to know that the Japs set them deeper now.”
Congressman May also lobbied the Defense dept for the Garsson brothers who were awarded military contracts to supply 4.2 inch mortar shells even though they had no munitions experience.
Unfortunately for US troops the Garsson brothers produced shells with defective fuzes causing some to explode in the tube or even before they were dropped into the tube.
For his efforts on behalf of the Garssons and other “irregularities” May lost his reelection race in 1946.
In 1947 he and both Garsson brothers were convicted of war profiteering.
The jury took only two hours to return the guilty verdict.
May was pardoned by President Harry Truman.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_J._May
Looks like “Niggardly Eisenflower” beat you to that by about a year
There woulda bin a hang’in if the leaker, er Traitor, were caught.
Also could you imagine is the leaker pasta long-expected casualty counts. It’s pretty easy to assume the allies understood there would be stacks of American, Canadian, and British fallen across northern France. But they were in it to save the world.
Just to be clear, The War Powers Act is 100% UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
That is all...
Actually, I did an extensive search back then.
I was the very first person to use that word online anywhere in 2003.
I didn’t post it to Urban Dictionary until 2014.
Pelosi would not even answer a call from VP Pence when missiles were fired from Iran at Americans in Iraq. She said to an aide she would call him back later!
That's the most succinct defense I've heard yet. That makes perfect sense.
One only needs to point to the Kenyan from Indonesia warning Iran of the previous attempt to take out the general by Israel.
Remember that. Was in total disbelief. He had a good gig.
https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1215393456589279233
WATCH: In 2012, Attorney General Eric Holder argued that the targeted elimination of a “senior operational leader” of a terrorist group or country who “presents an an imminent threat of violent attack” is NOT an “assassination,” it is SELF DEFENSE.
Holder in 2012: “the Constitution does NOT require the President to delay action until some theoretical end-stage of planning – when the precise time, place, and manner of an attack become clear. Such a requirement would create an unacceptably high risk”
Suppose some insane foreign power attacks the US? The president needs to act swiftly, strategically, and often without telling the media (which will tell the democrats which will tell our enemies.)
The dems hope something happens. Then, when Trump responds, they will use that in Articles of Impeachment II.
If Trump didn’t do anything, they would make an issue out of that. Do not underestimate the hypocrisy of the democrats (excrement be their name.)
*** joy ride over NYC retracing the fi ***
Victory Lap
By law, he has 48 hours, after the fact, to inform congress he did something in response to an attack upon US citizens and/or properties. He did that. He can remain in there, if we were and aren’t, for 60 days without congress’s okay. It hasn’t reached that point yet. So what’s the real problem?
It is that the War Powers Resolution (also known as the War Powers Resolution of 1973 or the War Powers Act) (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) is a federal law intended to check the U.S. president’s power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress. It acrtually failed because of the way it is written and it would conflict the Constitution if it were written without a leeway of immediate conflict needs as determined by the commander.
If this is the case, and it looks like that is what the house wants to do, then there is no need for a president and congress will run the whole thing. And since there can’t be two entities trying to interpret the Constitution, a document the house has been sidestepping since they started liberal control in the early 50’s, then the senate will have to go.
Seems to me this is one of the major reasons the civil war started.
rwood
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.