Author Topic: sparkling old dude, now in his dotage, wants Congress to sue President Trump  (Read 1152 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline franksolich

  • Scourge of the Primitives
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 57395
  • Reputation: +2179/-172
  • ^^^apres moi, le deluge
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212627249

Oh my.

Quote
Stinky The Clown (60,875 posts)     Sun Oct 27, 2019, 10:19 AM

Is there an actual LEGAL requirement for the president to inform Congress for ops like last night's?

I know the "Gang of 8" is normally informed. That did not happen last night.

Can Congress somehow seek a legal remedy (i.e.: sue the mother****er)?

Quote
The Velveteen Ocelot (75,835 posts)      Sun Oct 27, 2019, 10:21 AM

2. I don't know whether it's required, but

I do know that Congress can't sue the president.

Well, that was short and quick.

Too bad for the sparkling old dude.
Democrats: A bunch of rich people convincing poor people to vote for rich people by telling poor people that other rich people are the reason they are poor

Life is short, and suddenly you're not there any more.

Offline Mary Ann

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 956
  • Reputation: +189/-17
One DUmmy isn't long for the DUworld.

Quote
Falcata (127 posts)

4. Whether u like it or not

he's the CiC. It's his job to order these kinds of things. It's the only thing he's done right since his election.
Buh bye, Falcata. We barely knew ya.

Offline franksolich

  • Scourge of the Primitives
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 57395
  • Reputation: +2179/-172
  • ^^^apres moi, le deluge
One DUmmy isn't long for the DUworld.

You know, the sparkling old dude, now in his mid-70s and older than his much-younger trophy second wife, is no idiot, even though his early education was retarded by that he preferred to hang around with his, ahem, Italianate playmates in the back alley when he was a child; he had a very successful career in the food service industry.

He understood the answer to this question even before he asked it. 

He's just trying to attract attention, nothing more than that.
Democrats: A bunch of rich people convincing poor people to vote for rich people by telling poor people that other rich people are the reason they are poor

Life is short, and suddenly you're not there any more.

Offline SVPete

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16743
  • Reputation: +946/-177
Quote
Stinky The Clown (60,875 posts)     Sun Oct 27, 2019, 10:19 AM

Is there an actual LEGAL requirement for the president to inform Congress for ops like last night's?

I know the "Gang of 8" is normally informed. That did not happen last night.

Can Congress somehow seek a legal remedy (i.e.: sue the mother****er)?

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

Trump probably knows that informing the "Gang of 8" of something like this would result in a leak from one of the Dems among the 8. DUpipo do too, which is why Stinker, et al, are disappointed and pissed off.
Facts don't matter to DUpipo

Note to "Warpy": I voted for Donald Trump! I would do so again!

Big CHEETO is WATCHING You!

Offline zeitgeist

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6030
  • Reputation: +336/-42
You know, the sparkling old dude, now in his mid-70s and older than his much-younger trophy second wife, is no idiot, even though his early education was retarded by that he preferred to hang around with his, ahem, Italianate playmates in the back alley when he was a child; he had a very successful career in the food service industry.

He understood the answer to this question even before he asked it. 

He's just trying to attract attention, nothing more than that.

Well yes he is and employing a well known mental masturbation tactic common to leftists called: 'JAQing Off'  See the link below:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions

 :fuelfire:

Should one a man of wisdom meet
who points out faults and gives reproof,
who lays a hidden treasure bare,
with such a sage should one consort.
Consorting so is one enriched
and never in decline.

Offline SVPete

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16743
  • Reputation: +946/-177
Well, my post above was prior to my learning that Trump did act as he did so as to preclude the operation being leaked. IOW, I had a decent grasp on the grossly obvious when I posted yesterday morning. As to Stinker's claim:

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

Quote
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?

Quote
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 broke no law in not notifying the Speaker and the Leaker of the House prior to the operation.
Facts don't matter to DUpipo

Note to "Warpy": I voted for Donald Trump! I would do so again!

Big CHEETO is WATCHING You!