Connect with us

Politics

Flashback: Jeff Sessions Chided Obama Administration Over Unconstitutional Military Intervention in Libya [VIDEO]

Published

on

Back in 2012, then Senator Jeff Sessions chided then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta before the Armed Services Committee about the Obama administration acting unlawfully in Libya without coming to Congress.  Sessions also questioned General Martin Dempsey asking what law the US military serves under.  This should be brought out front in light of the recent missile attack authorized by the Trump administration in Syria.

First here’s the exchange between the three men.

To the question of what law Dempsey said that the US military serves under, he replied (and everyone should be shocked at his answer):

  1. At the consent of a foreign government (by invitation).
  2. National Self Defense which is a “clear criteria”.
  3. International Legal Basis.

Trending: Army Officer Who Knew Him Says Lt. Col. Vindman Has History of Anti-American Behavior

Sessions was quick to address him that neither NATO nor the United Nations is a legal basis in this matter.

Then, Sessions asked Panetta and Panetta was even more pitiful in his response that the US seeks international legal basis for war, like in Libya.

Keep in mind, that the Obama administration was tied in with Al Qaeda in Libya, just like they were the Islamic State in Syria.

Sessions was obviously not happy with the answers he was receiving and asked for some clarification.  He asked Panetta if the DoD could establish a “no fly zone” in Syria without Congressional approval.

Panetta dodged the question and again said he just needed international approval and added that once that was established he would “decide” whether or not to get approval from Congress.

When asked what legal basis there would be for such an operation, Panetta said that NATO and UN resolutions were a legal basis. Those are not legal basis. International law DOES NOT trump the Constitution.

Following this unconstitutional action, Rep. Walter Jones introduced a resolution that was supposed to be the basis to impeach Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Sobarkah if he used the military in that fashion again without authorization from Congress, and our Constitution states it is a declaration of war.  That failed, and Obama should have been impeached for that one infraction.

Fast forward to April 6, 2017.  Jeff Sessions is now Attorney General.  Donald Trump is now President.

Trump, following in the footsteps of Obama, has previously used the military without congressional approval in Yemen, as well as launching 59 Tomohawk missiles into Syria this week. Once upon a time, he knew this was unconstitutional.

Where is the legal basis for that?  It isn’t in the Constitution because it demands that President Trump comes to Congress for a declaration of war.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the US Constitution states:

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;

Where is that call issued from? It isn’t the Executive Branch. It comes from Congress (Article I, Section 8).

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

All of this is Congress’ duty, not the Executive. Furthermore, notice that this requires a declaration of war, something we have not had since World War II.

I have heard people tell me time and again that it isn’t a war, it was just taking out their airfield.  Seriously, I have seen several people say that nonsense, to which I reply, “So, if Russia was to launch 50 missiles in a desert in the US where no one lives, would we consider that an act of war?  Of course, we would.  How much more this unconstitutional action?

Then, there are those who want to point to the War Powers Act.  Seriously, I shake my head at this because the War Powers Act was specifically designed that if we came under attack, the President could not convene with Congress for approval and had 60 days to come before them, which would be obvious to everyone in Congress that an attack had occurred and the President would have acted constitutionally to defend the united States.

Now, this Act is being trotted out to allow the executive to use the military anywhere and for whatever means he wants.  That is a gross violation of the intent.  Furthermore, it a gross violation of the Constitution, as well.

According to the Library of Congress:

Conceptually, the War Powers Resolution can be broken down into several distinct parts. The first part states the policy behind the law, namely to “insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities,” and that the President’s powers as Commander in Chief are exercised only pursuant to a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization from Congress, or a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States (50 USC Sec. 1541).

The second part requires the President to consult with Congress before introducing U.S. armed forces into hostilities or situations where hostilities are imminent, and to continue such consultations as long as U.S. armed forces remain in such situations (50 USC Sec. 1542). The third part sets forth reporting requirements that the President must comply with any time he introduces U.S. armed forces into existing or imminent hostilities (50 USC Sec. 1543); section 1543(a)(1) is particularly significant because it can trigger a 60 day time limit on the use of U.S. forces under section 1544(b).

The fourth part of the law concerns Congressional actions and procedures. Of particular interest is Section 1544(b), which requires that U.S. forces be withdrawn from hostilities within 60 days of the time a report is submitted or is required to be submitted under Section 1543(a)(1), unless Congress acts to approve continued military action, or is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Section 1544(c) requires the President to remove U.S. armed forces that are engaged in hostilities “without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization” at any time if Congress so directs by a Concurrent Resolution (50 USC 1544). Concurrent Resolutions are not laws and are not presented to the President for signature or veto; as a result the procedure contemplated under Section 1544(c) is known as a “legislative veto” and is constitutionally questionable in light of the decision of the United States Supreme Court in INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983). Further sections set forth expedited Congressional procedures for considering proposed legislation to authorize the use of U.S. armed forces, as well as similar procedures regarding proposed legislation to withdraw U.S. forces under Section 1544(c) (50 U.S. 1545-46a).

The fifth part of the law sets forth certain definitions and rules to be used when interpreting the War Powers Resolution (50 USC 1547). Finally, the sixth part is a “separability provision” and states that if any part of the law is held (by a court) to be invalid, on its face or as applied to a particular situation, the rest of the law shall not be considered invalid, nor shall its applicability to other situations be affected (50 USC 1548).

None of this was met by the Trump administration.  The US was not attacked.  There was no national emergency.  There was no authorization from Congress.  There was no declaration of war by Congress.  There was no “collective judgment” between Congress and Trump.

You might say, “Well, it needed to be done because of the children involved.”  First, is America, who continues a Holocaust of 60 million murdered babies in a position to take moral high ground when it comes to murdering children?  I think not.  Second, we are not even sure that the chemical attack was a real attack.  Just take a look at all the Syrian “White Helmets” in the footage.  We know they are Islamic jihadi propagandists.  We should question all of it.

Furthermore, in 2011, Republicans in Nevada passes a resolution demanding that Congress enforce the War Powers Act against Obama for his actions in Libya.  Here’s the text of that resolution.

WHEREAS, President Barack Obama sent United States Military forces into combat in the Libyan Republic March 19, 2011

WHEREAS, 50 U.S.C. § 1541, (c) requires the Commander in Chief to secure approval from Congress for such an act unless there has been:  (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.

WHEREAS, none of the above-stated criteria have occurred.

WHEREAS, Congress created the War Powers Resolution specifically to fulfill the intent of the Framers of the Constitution of the United States and ensure that the collective judgment of both the Congressand the President would apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities.

WHEREAS, President Obama prosecuting Operation Odyssey Dawn, now Operation Unified Protector, without the required Congressional statutory authorization, disregards the Rule of Law and Separation of Powers in our Constitution emphasized by Congress with the War Powers Resolution.

WHEREAS, Unchecked violation of laws sets a dangerous precedent for future governmental officials that must not be allowed.

WHEREAS, 50 U.S.C. § 1544, (c) provides, “…at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.”

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, President Obama’s actions constitute a clear violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1541

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, The Douglas County Republican Central Committee demands President Obama immediately petition Congress for the required initial authorization for the conduct of Operation Odyssey Dawn and Operation Unified Protector.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, Should President Obama fail to petition Congress immediately for this approval, The Douglas County Republican Central Committee demands Congress act immediately under the specific authority granted them by 50 U.S.C. § 1544 (c) to direct President Obama to immediately terminate American participation in Operation Unified Protector.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, Further, should President Obama fail to petition Congress for this authority, The Douglas County Republican Central Committee demands Congress censure President Obama for his flagrant violation of the law.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, The Chair of the Douglas County Republican Central Committee will ensure a copy of this resolution, once approved, is signed and forwarded via fax to: President Obama, Speaker Boehner, Majority Leader Reid, Senator Heller, Congressman Heck, Congresswoman Berkley, House and Senate Clerks Offices.

Now, if men knew that about Obama, where are the cries about Trump?  He is acting unconstitutionally and unlawfully in the attack and use of military against Syria.  If it was an impeachable offense by Obama, it is an impeachable offense by Trump.  Let’s stop playing this game as though Republicans are not as guilty of violating the Constitution as Democrats.  Both do it constantly.

So, Attorney General Sessions,

This is why it is important when we elect our leaders that they actually know the Constitution they swear to uphold and defend, not whether or not they are good businessmen.

Reposted With Permission From Freedom Outpost
Don't forget to Like The Washington Sentinel on Facebook and Twitter, and visit our friends at The Republican Legion.

Become an insider!

Sign up for the free Washington Sentinel email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politics

As Swamp Drains, Clinton Foundation Sees 16-Year Low for Donations

The American people are growing too smart to humor the Clintons’ shady charade.

Published

on

The American people have shown a propensity of late for cutting through the gibberish of Washington DC.

This sharpening of their political wit has arisen during a time of great turmoil in our nation.  President Donald Trump has swept into the nation’s capital on the premise that he would be shaking it up, draining the swamp, or whichever metaphor best suits the process.  This new sheriff in town attitude has trickled down to the people as well, and we find ourselves as skeptical as ever about the state of the union.

As such, we have looked deep within ourselves and our not-so-distant past to find evidence of wrongdoing just years or months behind us.  After all, this fits into the timeline in which our nation found themselves so bereft of corruption they saw fit to bring in a Trumpian solution.

Right in the middle of all of this swampiness sits former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, whose Clinton Foundation has suffered greatly during this political awakening.

The Clinton Foundation’s revenue has nosedived following Hillary Clinton’s loss to then-candidate Donald Trump in 2016. According to its recently released public report, the organization took in just $30.7 million in 2018 – over seven million less than the $38.4 million it reported in 2017 and roughly $218 million less than the $249 million the charity raised in 2009, when Clinton served as the secretary of state in the Obama administration.

The charity spent millions more than it took in last year, spending $47.5 million on “payroll, grants and promotion, among other items,” according to Open Secrets.

Thanks to the work of whistleblower outfit Wikileaks, the American people learned that Hillary Clinton was operating a pay-to-play scheme during her time as Secretary of State, in which she solicited donations to the Clinton Foundation in exchange for face time at the State Department.

This, along with her rigging of the 2016 primary elections, has reduced Hillary Clinton’s political legacy to little more than proverbial rubble, likely affecting the ability of her foundation to raise funds.

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump Responds to Sondland Testimony with Notes of Call on White House Lawn

Sondland’s CYA opening statement has been eviscerated by his own transcribed phone call with the President.

Published

on

Today’s impeachment hearing has been a tale of two parties, once again, but this time under the highly polarizing spell of a panicked Congress.

Gordon Sondland stunned the Republicans this morning during his opening statement, in which he stated quite clearly that a “quid pro quo” was present in the case of Ukraine, while also seemingly throwing a number of high-ranking government officials under the proverbial bus.

Apparently, Sondland got the mainstream media memo about the need for a little more “pizzazz” in these proceedings.

That opening statement hit the press ahead of his testimony, to get a head start on the news’ spin for the day, and appeared to take Ranking Republican Devin Nunes by surprise.

But, as Sondland trudged through the friendly questions of the Democrats and into the suddenly bitter then of the GOP, a new reality emerged.  In fact, the President had told Sondland explicitly and specifically that no such quid pro quo was to be had.

The President, on his way to Marine One, reminded the nation of this in his signature style.

Of course, these words come directly from a phone call whose transcript has already been read into evidence, and clearly shows the President assuring Sondland that nothing untoward should occur in Ukraine.

So do we believe the opening statement of a man who has already committed to refiguring this previous testimony in order to stay out of jail, or do we believe the transcript of a phone call emanating from the White House itself?

 

Continue Reading

Politics

Walter Reed Conspiracy Theories Spooked Melania Trump, According to POTUS

There has been no evidence provided that would suggest the President is unhealthy or that he had a medical emergency over the weekend. 

Published

on

A strange side story has emerged in Washington DC this week after the President made an unexpected visit to Walter Reed Hospital.

Impeachment has certainly been the focal point of the mainstream media over the course of last few weeks, much to the chagrin of the Democratic Party.  They are viewing these hearings as an opportunity to demean President Trump ahead of the 2020 election, understanding full well that there is no chance of a conviction in the Republican-controlled Senate.

But another, just plain weirder subject seemed to take over social media in the last few days, and it involves the President’s health.

Predictably, the mainstream media has taken a bit of a biased stance in the matter including AP News.

A lack of notice. Past failures to level with the American people. A tough week for the White House as public impeachment hearings got under way.

Add it all up, and President Donald Trump’s unscheduled weekend visit to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center raised suspicions about his health, despite White House officials’ insistence that the president was merely getting a head start on his annual physical.

For any president, a sudden trip to the hospital would raise questions. But such scrutiny was magnified with a president who has a history of exaggeration and playing loose with the facts, giving skeptics room to run with their own theories.

“The one thing you can be absolutely sure of is this was not routine and he didn’t go up there for half his physical,” tweeted Joe Lockhart, a press secretary under President Bill Clinton, who was himself impeached for perjury and obstruction. “What does it mean? It means that we just won’t know what the medical issue was.”

The inexcusable speculation even frightened the First Lady – something that the President addressed from the White House on Tuesday.

“I went for a physical. and I came back and my wife said, ‘Darling are you OK? … Oh they’re reporting you may have had a heart attack,’” Trump explained. “I said ‘Why did I have a heart attack?’ ‘Because you went to Walter Reed Medical Center’ — that’s where we go when we get the physicals.”

“I was only there for a very short period of time, I went, did a very routine, just a piece of it, the rest takes place in January,” he continued, noting that afterward he took a tour of the hospital and met with an injured soldier and their family. “I got back home and I get greeted with the news that ‘We understand you had a heart attack!’”

There has been no evidence provided that would suggest the President is unhealthy or that he had a medical emergency over the weekend.

 

Continue Reading

Politics

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman Scolds GOP Rep. Devin Nunes Over How He’ll Be Addressed

The impartiality argument is growing thinner by the minute.

Published

on

The Democrats are walking quite the tightrope in their “formal impeachment inquiry”, incessantly attempting to paint many of their witnesses as non-partisan to counter accusations being made both by the President and the Republicans who are participating in the process.

This has led to a particularly contentious debate over the real, true purpose of impeachment itself, which Republicans have characterized as an attempt to nullify the will of the American people during the 2016 election.

Today, during the testimony of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a bit of that contention boiled over.

The testimony of National Security Council official Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman grew tense Tuesday under questioning from Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif. — as the impeachment hearing witness eventually scolded the top intelligence committee Republican for not addressing him by his military title.

The moment came amid a back-and-forth over the identity of the anonymous whistleblower whose complaint about President Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky led to the impeachment proceedings.

“Mr. Vindman, you testified in your deposition that you did not know the whistleblower,” Nunes stated.

“Ranking member, it’s Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, please,” the witness responded.

Nunes corrected himself and repeated the statement, which followed questions regarding who Vindman had spoken with about Trump’s phone call. More than once, Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., interjected to advise Vindman that the purpose of the hearing was not to expose the identity of the whistleblower, who is afforded legal protection.

The moment quickly went viral online, with a great many “resistance”-minded social media users cheering on what they say as a snide attack on Nunes, furthering the partisan hyperbole that these proceedings have already been mired in.

 

Continue Reading

Politics

Jeff Sessions Tells Nancy Pelosi to ‘Wrap it Up’ in Regard to Impeachment

Is this yet another example of Sessions attempting to receive the blessing of the President during his campaign for the Senate?

Published

on

For many Americans, including Jeff Sessions, this impeachment fiasco has gone on long enough.

President Trump has repeatedly chastised the Democrats for their singular and unending focus on impeachment, which has led the nation down a path of stagnation.  A great many legislative projects have been put on hold in recent weeks thanks to the impeachment obsession, including work on the US Mexico Canada Trade Agreement, healthcare reform, and immigration enhancement – all subjects that prospective voters have been clamoring for.

Furthermore, the impeachment “inquiry” itself has completely dominated the news cycle, disallowing the American people whatever other information that they would normally be educating themselves with when they tune in to the “news”.

All in all, the process has handcuffed America and Americans to the spectacle unfolding before us in the chambers of Congress, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions is sick of it.

In a Monday interview with “Fox & Friends,” former U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions called on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to bring the impeachment inquiry to a “conclusion.”

Sessions, a candidate for his old U.S. Senate seat in Alabama, said the impeachment probe is “not well-founded,” adding Pelosi is “wrong” to threaten President Donald Trump if he criticizes the Ukraine whistleblower’s identity remaining a secret.

“I think [Pelosi] needs to bring this thing to a conclusion,” Sessions stated. “It’s not well-founded to begin with, but just to pick fights with the president and try to make those kind of threats I think is wrong at this time for sure.”

Sessions, who was once at odds with President Trump, has repeatedly tried to bring the Commander in Chief back into his camp as he vies for his old Senate seat.

Trump and Sessions have been in a tumultuous relationship ever since Sessions recused himself from the RussiaGate probe while still in the position of Attorney General.

Continue Reading

Politics

Schiff Workin’ for The Weekend with Saturday Testimony from Budget Office

The Democrats are persistent, we’ll give ’em that.

Published

on

The Democrats and their “resistance” are running hot this week, after fireworks erupted in the House Intelligence Committee chambers during public impeachment hearings against Donald Trump.

At the center of this mess has been Democratic Representative Adam Schiff, chairman of the aforementioned intel committee.  His selective enforcement of the Democrats’ own rules on impeachment has irked the Republican Party to no end, after already finding themselves befuddled by Schiff’s secret and clandestine hearings weeks ago.

Now, Schiff’s got ’em working on the weekend.

House impeachment investigators met in private Saturday with a White House budget official as the historic inquiry produces new testimony offering direct insight of President Donald Trump’s actions toward Ukraine.

After a week of dramatic public hearings, investigators heard late Friday in closed session from State Department official David Holmes, who delivered a firsthand account that puts the president at the forefront of events.

What exactly did Holmes allege to have heard?

Holmes, the political counselor at the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, testified that he overheard Trump in a phone call with his European Union ambassador, Gordon Sondland, saying he wanted Ukraine to conduct investigations. Sondland later explained the investigations pertained to “Bidens” — a reference to former Vice President Joe Biden and Biden’s son Hunter, who served on the board of a gas company in Ukraine. No wrongdoing by either Biden has been substantiated.

And about that Budget Office testimony?

The latest witness was Mark Sandy, a White House budget officer, as Democrats scrutinize the administration’s decision to withhold military aid from Ukraine while Trump pushed the country’s new president for the political investigations.

Sandy was the first official from the Office of Management and Budget to defy Trump’s instructions not to testify. Like others, he received a subpoena to appear.

Republicans have been making the case that, since the aide money was not ultimately withheld, and since the Ukraine didn’t even know about the holdup, there was no possible way that the President’s negotiations on a July 25th phone call could amount to an incriminating act.

Continue Reading

Politics

Nancy Pelosi Says Trump is ‘Imposter’ After POTUS Torches Yovanovitch

Pelosi is losing her grip on civility.

Published

on

Nancy Pelosi was doing fairly well at biting her tongue during this otherwise divisive impeachment process, attempting, at 79 years of age, to be the adult in the room.

Madam Speaker is losing her patience, however, and has begun to lash out, directing her ire at Republicans, the press, and even the President.

Her latest tirade against Trump saw the longtime Democrat insult the Commander in Chief as an “imposter”.

From a recent CBS interview:

Pelosi answered, “What the president, and perhaps some at the White House have to know, that the words of the president weigh a ton. They are very significant, and he should not frivolously throw out insults, but that’s what he does. I think part of it is his own insecurity as an impostor. I think he knows full well that he’s in that office way over his head. And so, he has to diminish everyone else.”

Just days ago, Pelosi had a similar lapse in civility during a Q&A with the press, in which she belittled one of the gathered reporters as “Mr. Republican Talking Points”.

Pelosi herself was reluctant to engage in this “formal impeachment inquiry” for months, only finally join her fellow Democrats in calling for such a maneuver after an anonymous whistleblower with second and third-hand knowledge of possible improprieties attributed to the President.

 

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Become an insider

Sign up for the free Washington Sentinel email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Best of the Month

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!

Pin It on Pinterest