The Con did not inform Adam Schiff about the raid as required

[dutch508]

Star Member malaise (197,465 posts)
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212626917

The Con did not inform Adam Schiff about the raid as required
This piece of shit is not fit for office

 

Star Member spanone (116,090 posts)

6. Claimed they would have leaked it.

I've got no doubts they would have leaked it.

Star Member malaise (197,465 posts)

5. He just admitted that he broke the law and did not inform Adam Schiff

One more ground for impeachment

Star Member Kaleva (22,514 posts)

9. The War Powers Act requires the presdient to inform Congress within 48 hrs after the fact

 

Python boot (17 posts)

10. AUMF?

I had to look up AUMF authority to use military force after 9/11 and according to wiki it is still in effect and the Orange vulgarian is of course trying to make it apply all situations.

 

[SVPete]

Star Moron malaise (197,465 posts)
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212626917

The Con did not inform Adam Schiff about the raid as required
This piece of shit is not fit for office

Trump didn't trust Schiffty? I'm shocked! Shocked! Given mal's "knowledge" of US laws, what law requires the POTUS to inform anyone in Congress about such actions? I'm asking because I don't know, but mal makes @#$% up and such a requirement makes no sense, if only due to the time delay potentially entailed by such a requirement.

Will this be the WashPost headline: Al Baghdadi Dead: Trump-Haters Hardest Hit  

[Drafe Hoblin]

Adam Schiff did not inform Adam Schiff that if no Congressional action was voted-upon, there's nothing to obstruct. 

[I_B_Perky]

My take is this:

The outrage that the congress critters were not informed before hand is nothing more than foot stamping by the MSM. If President Trump broke the law the MSM would be all over it and there would have been an impeachment vote forthwith.

[SVPete]

From my post in another thread:

Trump: We Didn’t Tell Schiff About Baghdadi Operation Because …

Take this multiple-choice quiz as to the reason Donald Trump gave for shining on House Intelligence chair Adam Schiff about the Baghdadi operation. Was it (a) considered fully within the purview of the White House due to ongoing operations, (b) too touch-and-go to follow normal protocol, or (c) because Schiff routinely leaks like a sieve?

When Trump first announced al-Baghdadi’s death Sunday morning, he said he decided not to tell officials, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, because he was afraid leaks could compromise the mission. Speaking to reporters Monday morning, he singled out House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., as the focus of those concerns.

“The only thing is they were talking about why didn’t I give the information to Adam Schiff and his committee, and the answer is because I think Adam Schiff is the biggest leaker in Washington,” Trump said. “You know that, I know that, we all know that. I’ve watched Adam Schiff leak. He’s a corrupt politician. He’s a leaker like nobody has ever seen before.”

So in effect, it’s both (a) and (c), but mainly (c). We can also throw in a dash of (d), too — revenge. Trump has watched Schiff’s ad hoc impeachment inquiry employ selective leaks from depositions over the last couple of weeks in order to build a public narrative for his impeachment. Why would he invite Schiff in on one of his most important military achievements, especially when he has the leaker excuse to exclude him?

Perhaps he was obligated to include him, as our own Taylor Millard argued last night, but that’s not quite as clear-cut as Taylor suggested. Taylor relied on 50 USC 3093 to argue that federal law requires notification to intel committee leadership when covert operations are undertaken, but that law specifically applies to intelligence agencies, not the military. ...

However, the raid on Baghdadi was a military operation, not a CIA covert op. It used intelligence garnered from a number of agencies, not all of them American, but the raid itself was conducted by military special forces under the command of the Pentagon. As such, 50 USC 3093 does not apply. ...
...
... blatant leakers and demagogues like Schiff who are presently spending their time attempting to impeach Trump. That understandably tends to limit the invitations one gets from the White House for special events.  Under the circumstances, it’s tough to blame Trump for (a), (c), or (d).

This gives a very decent over-view of the legal intricacies of required notification. The bottom line is that Trump was not legally required to notify Pelosi, Schiffty, et al before the operation.

[landofconfusion80]

Just saw an interesting conspiracy theory about this... a tail was put on pelosi and her entourage when they went to the middle east. She met up with ISIS leaders and that gave the go to knock em out. Explains the secrecy from the dems too. It's really not too far out there, kennedy met with the Soviets to oppose Reagan in the 80s

[DUmpsterDiver]

> Star Member malaise (197,465 posts) The Con did not inform Adam Schiff about the raid as required

Eat schiff and go away you filthy skank with your stinky idiocy and retarded timing. Tighten yer burka scrunt.