The Right Side of the News

The law requires that Trump inform the Gang of Eight of such actions unless there is a threat so imminent that there isn't time.He's claimed an imminent threat. The multitude of different stories the6administra has told make it clear there was no imminent threat. They couldn't even brief Congress on an imminent threat.You yourself wrote "of course" the assassination was in response to protestors at our embassy. It's obvious that's true. Not an imminent threat.So, illegal.

She was referring to the assassination not Ukraine. That's a different crime.It is hard to keep track of so many.

Worker threw exception | www.rawstory.com | Cloudflare

quote:

---

"Officials at the State Department, in coordination with the White House, drafted talking points advising those who would appear in the media to underscore Soleimani’s ‘malign activities’ and his role in killing American troops over the years, according to two U.S. officials, the report notes. But the White House wanted to advance a different argumentone that wasn’t about what Iran had already done, but what U.S. officials claimed Iran was about to do. They said the U.S. killed Soleimani because he was planning ‘imminent’ attacks that would harm American interests.

​

That, in turn, led to disastrous cable news appearances by Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo who were unable to back up the president’s claims of multiple embassies facing threats which has now led to calls for an investigation into whether the president ordered the strike to take attention away from his pending impeachment trial.

---

FWIW I don't hate Trump. I hate what he and his merry band of criminals have done. Trump's just so far out of his depth he's looking up at the Titanic.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Soleimani was killed in Baghdad where he was planning to kill more people. I thought killing him was a response to his other crimes but apparently there was more to it as he was in Baghdad with new plans in mind.Trump had no obligation at all to inform anyone of his activities, as no President before him as ever done either.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

JonF is right, I was talking about taking out the terrorist Suleimani, not about the Ukrainian situation, but as to the latter Trump was not asking for anything related to anything personal at all, that's all made up by the Left, he was asking about corruptions within the Ukraine that always affect whether or not we will send aid to any nation. The corruptions in this case relate to the 2016 election tampering by the Democrats against Trump, and to the Biden situation where it seems HE withheld aid about a PERSONAL matter. Trump did not, Trump certainly had no personal reasons to go after Biden who was not at that time and probably never will be a contender in the next election anyway. That's such a bunch of bogus BS. But a President has the obligation to refuse aid to countries engaged in known corruption.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

see Message 305 on Cancer Survivors

I.e. no imminent threat. Have you noticed that every time you deny the existence of a law you are immediately shown to be wrong?US Constitution, Article 1, section 8:

quote:

---

The Congress shall have Power ... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

---

PUBLIC LAW 93-148 (the "War Powers Resolution of 1973"):

quote:

---

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

​

SEC. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

---

War Powers Resolution: Presidential Compliance:

quote:

---

Two separate but closely related issues confront Congress each time the President introduces Armed Forces into a situation abroad that conceivably could lead to their involvement in hostilities. One issue concerns the division of war powers between the President and Congress, whether the use of Armed Forces falls within the purview of the congressional power to declare war and the War Powers Resolution (WPR). [...]

​

For over three decades, war powers and the War Powers Resolution have been an issue in U.S. military actions in Asia, the Middle East, Africa, Central America, and Europe. Presidents have submitted 136 reports to Congress as a result of the War Powers Resolution, although only one (the Mayaguez situation) cited Section 4(a)(1) or specifically stated that forces had been introduced into hostilities or imminent hostilities.

---

{emphasis added}.Whether or not Trump was required to notify Congress has not been tested in court, so lawyers could argue it. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

The "existence" of a law is not the point since Congress makes up bogus laws out of sheer hatred of Trump, and there is precedent for this kind of subterfuge in the Congress that impeached Andrew Johnson on the basis of an unconstitutional law they passed to prevent him from firing his War Secretary because they didn't want him to do that, although it was completely within his Constitutional power to do so. Same with the War Powers law apparently, they can't pass a law preventing the President from doing his Constitut8ionally defined duty.

Sorry Faith but in the US even an incompetent fool like il Donaldo is subject to any laws that exist. It does not matter if they are bogus or not, if they are the law then they apply to even il Donaldo.

I see I never directly answered this post of yours, so I'll do so now: So now to answer this ridiculous stuff DIRECTLY with the videos from Erica Kasraie in Message 4323 and Message 4324. She says that the supposed "love" for Soleimeini was all propaganda by the government, who even required their own employees to make it look like he was loved, whereas the Iranian people in general are very very happy that Solameini was taken out and yes actually tweeting Thanks to Trump.And yes also "liking" his tweet in Farsi in support of the Iranian people in unprecedentedly great numbers. She mentions that she was taught to say "Death to America" when she was only seven. How many actual Iranians share that sentiment is open to question since it's forced on them by the government.Please listen to these videos, at least two minutes of the first one from 1:00, and it would be really nice if you'd actually apologize but I won't hold my breath.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Except he wasn't investigating corruption. He was not concerned with any investigation of corruption, just an announcement that Biden was being investigated ... and nobody else ... and then he released the funds without any document being provided clearing Ukraine or any of the other (several) excuses he had for holding the money.The only thing that occurred before the release of funds was the announcement of an investigation into his holding the funds. If he had any other reason than hustling Ukraine then he could have kept holding the funds.You do need to look at all the FACTS faith, not just what conforms to your beliefs.Amusing that there is now an investigation of this in the Ukraine to see if any Ukrainians participated in the corrupt efforts of Giuliani to create a false narrative and to get the Ambassador removed to make it easier for the corruption to proceed.Ukraine investigates prosecutor who gave Giuliani information on Biden | Ukraine | The GuardianAnd he is being investigated about here as wellGiuliani Is Said to Be Under Investigation for Ukraine Work - The New York TimesIt would be interesting to see him at the Senate impeachment hearing ... under oath ... it seems he is a central player in this matter.Enjoy.

The laws are passed by Congress and signed by the President, or vetoed and overridden. There is no such thing as a bogus law. If you disapprove of a law you can sue (with some restrictions).The War Powers Resolution is the law of the land unless and until it is repealed or invalidated in court. Deal with it.ABE The President doesn't have the Constitutional power to wage war, Congress does. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Does the President have the right to assassinate someone who says bad things about the US?

Congress made a law on which they impeached Andrew Johnson for disobeying it.Trump did not wage war. he was specifically aiminhg to end war. Only the Left invented the other line.if the War Powers resolution is unconstitutional then it should be challeneged in the courts. Otherwise I think morally we are always in the right to disobey a bogus law.

Being morally in the right is not a defense under the law.