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: House Republicans Sue Pelosi For Defying ‘231-Year Constitutional Tradition’ With Proxy Voting

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

Lindsey Graham Announces First Witness in RussiaGate Origins Probe…and It’s a Doozy

The truth may be just over the horizon, and that does not bode well for the Democrats’ chances of taking back the White House in 2020. 

Published

on

Now that the RussiaGate hoax has now been officially swallowed by the ObamaGate scandal, it’s the GOP’s turn to work the case and uncover just how deep the Democratic debauchery goes.

As it stands today, many on the right side of the aisle are of the belief that the outgoing Obama administration was responsible for concocting a plan to delegitimize the election of Donald Trump by linking him to The Kremlin, and attempting to portray the Big Apple businessman as a stooge to Vladimir Putin.  They used every trick in the book as well, including salacious and unverifiable rumors being passed off as “counterintelligence dossiers”.

Of course, now that the Republicans have a hold of the Senate, they are looking to get to the bottom of this mess, and they certainly aren’t wasting any time beating around the bush.

Former acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein will be the first witness to testify in the Senate Judiciary Committee’s investigation into the origins of the Russia probe.

The Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., announced Wednesday that Rosenstein is scheduled to testify before the committee on June 3 at 10:00 a.m.

The hearing, according to the committee, will be titled “Oversight of the Crossfire Hurricane Investigation: Day 1.”

Why Rosenstein?

“Crossfire Hurricane” is the FBI’s internal code name for the bureau’s original investigation into whether members of the Trump campaign were colluding with Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election. That investigation was launched by the FBI in July 2016. Former special counsel Robert Mueller’s team eventually announced that it found no evidence of coordination.

“Mr. Rosenstein will testify about the new revelations contained in the Horowitz report concerning the FISA warrant applications and other matters,” Graham said in a statement Wednesday. “This will be the first in a series of oversight hearings regarding all things Crossfire Hurricane and the Mueller investigation.”

The truth may be just over the horizon, and that does not bode well for the Democrats’ chances of taking back the White House in 2020.

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump Tweets Eye-Opening ObamaGate Comparison as Joe Pientka Remains At-Large

The left is trying to cover their tracks, but President Trump has employed some of the world’s finest political bloodhounds.

Published

on

Where there was once “RussiaGate”, we now have the all-encompassing ObamaGate scandal, in which every new piece of evidence we discover appears to support the idea that the outgoing administration, under the supervision and responsibility of Barack Obama, was involved in the sort of smear campaign that Hollywood producers would pan as being too “far-fetched” for the silver screen.

This is the sort of controversy that could blow Washington wide open, especially as it becomes ever clearer that high-level officials within No. 44’s administration were intimately involved with the plan to frame incoming President Donald Trump as some sort of Kremlin double-agent.

With new evidence emerging every day, it was only a matter of time before the comparisons between ObamaGate and other major scandals emerged. 

President Donald Trump continued Wednesday to raise questions about former President Barack Obama spying on his campaign during the 2016 election.

“OBAMAGATE MAKES WATERGATE LOOK LIKE SMALL POTATOES!” he wrote on Twitter in all-caps.

Then came even more damning allegations.

“New papers make CLEAR that the Obama Administration SPIED, in an unprecedented manner, on the Trump Campaign and beyond, and even on the United States Senate,” he wrote.

Trump spent Tuesday night retweeting news and information on Twitter about the Russia “hoax” investigation as Acting Director of National Intelligence Ric Grennell spent his last day declassifying new documents about the case.

On Tuesday, White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany suggested the newly confirmed Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe could release more information about the tactics used by the FBI and the Obama administration to spy on Trump’s campaign.

“This President has overseen an ODNI (Office of the Director of National Intelligence) that has given the American people a lot of information that I think they’re entitled to see,” she said during a press briefing. “And one of the things the President has asked for is, where are the 302s — the summaries of that interview with Michael Flynn?”

The missing 302’s have become the next hinge point in this necessary counter investigation, and the only man left who can help sort his out, FBI Agent Joe Pientka, has essentially gone missing.

Continue Reading

Politics

House Republicans Sue Pelosi For Defying ‘231-Year Constitutional Tradition’ With Proxy Voting

Published

on

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy announces a lawsuit against Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) brought by his party’s caucus in an effort to block voting by proxy in the chamber.

“I just filed a lawsuit in federal court to overturn Speaker Pelosi’s unconstitutional proxy voting scheme,” tweeted McCarthy on Tuesday evening. “It could allow as few as 20 Representatives to control the votes of 220. This is NOT the representative democracy our Founders envisioned or what our Constitution allows.”

TDW:

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) filed a lawsuit against Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on Tuesday evening in an attempt to block the House of Representatives from allowing representatives to vote on behalf of up to ten other members of Congress as a designated proxy voter.

In addition to McCarthy, nearly two dozen Republican members of Congress have signed on as plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which also names the sergeant-at-arms and House clerk, two figures who serve a notable role in the proxy voting plan, as defendants.

The lawsuit states that, so far, 55 members of Congress had sent letters to the House clerk designating another representative as their official proxy voter. As of Tuesday evening, an additional four members of congress officially designated another representative as their proxy, bringing the total to 59 members, all of whom are Democrats.

The lawsuit, a copy of which was posted by The New York Times, accuses the Majority of ignoring “what the constitution demands of it,” and asks that the court “not do the same” in its ruling. More

The representatives need to show up for work or resign from their office. These people are overpaid and get benefits for life the least they can do is show up in person to do their jobs. They already get too many privileges and have enough special rules just for themselves. The rest of us are going back to work and they should too.

 

Continue Reading

Politics

POTUS Reflect on ‘Chance to Break the Deep State’ in Powerful New Interview

President Trump is practically daring the Deep State to show themselves at this point.

Published

on

Donald Trump’s election in 2016 was largely predicated on the idea that the NYC business mogul would arrive in Washington DC and figuratively burn the place to the ground.

The American people had been victimized long enough by the lobbyists, special interest groups, and other vermin that dwelled within the Washington swamp.  Trump understood this explicitly and made sure to promote his hopes for extermination during that grueling campaign.

Now, from his post in the Oval Office, President Trump is continuing this populist campaign, and doing so with such gusto that he has made the once-clandestine “Deep State” a household moniker.

During a recent interview with Sharyl Atkisson, the Commander in Chief even went so far as to call out the Deep State by name, threatening to “break” them in the coming months.

“When you look at what [acting DNI] Richard Grenell has done in eight weeks, these people didn’t do anything for two and a half years. They should have been exposing this. So I’m very disappointed in certain people. And some people have done a phenomenal job, but what am I doing? I’m fighting the deep state. I’m fighting the swamp. And I said I was doing it. And I’m exposing the swamp. I think if it keeps going the way I’m going, and Ratcliffe is fantastic,” he said.

“If it keeps going the way it’s going, I have a chance to break the deep state. It’s a vicious group of people. It’s very bad for our country. And that’s never happened before,” Trump said.

The storm is coming, folks, and the President is ready to hunker down and push us on through to the other side of it.

Continue Reading

Politics

President Trump Told by Baltimore Mayor to ‘STAY AWAY’ for Memorial Day

This is a stunt, plain and simple, and we can only hope that Americans will see right through it. 

Published

on

In this time of great “resistance”, every Democratic politician and their brother is grandstanding in an effort to be seen “standing up” to Donald Trump.

This is the cheapest and easiest way for the liberal left to score political points in 2020, and some of these shenanigans are just too ridiculous to believe.

Take Baltimore’s Mayor for example, who took to Twitter, (and not official channels of communication), to implore that President Trump not complete a preplanned visit to the city for Memorial Day.

The mayor of Baltimore is asking President Donald Trump to stay home ahead of a planned trip to Fort McHenry for Memorial Day, calling it “not a smart thing to do” as the city remains on lockdown over the coronavirus.

“That President Trump is deciding to pursue non-essential travel sends the wrong message to our residents, many of whom have been disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 virus,” Mayor Bernard “Jack” Young said in a statement Thursday.

Trump is scheduled on Monday to visit the city’s Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine, which has been closed to all visitors since late March due to the coronavirus. While Maryland began phasing out its statewide “stay-at-home” order last week, the city of Baltimore’s is still in place. Young told CNN on Friday he got no heads-up about Trump’s visit.

“Dear Mr. President @realDonaldTrump, please stay home!” Young said on Twitter Thursday.

The smackdown that Young received from the White House was swift and epic.

A spokesperson for the White House, Judd Deere, said in a statement that Trump will not stay home.

“The brave men and women who have preserved our freedoms for generations did not stay home and the President will not either as he honors their sacrifice by visiting such a historic landmark in our Nation’s history,” Deere said.

This is a stunt, plain and simple, and we can only hope that Americans will see right through it.

Continue Reading

Politics

Democratic Pundit Says Biden’s ‘You Ain’t Black’ Comment Won’t Mean ‘Diddly Squat’

This whole argument sounds like the dialogue from a B-grade movie set in the 1940’s.

Published

on

At the end of this 2020 race, the Democrats are going to be exhausted.  They’ve already spent much of race trying to carry poor, old Joe Biden across the finish line, despite his constant stream of worrisome gibberish and tawdry temper tantrums.

It should be telling that the Democrats’ best shot at taking the White House back is a man who once called a female town hall attendee a “lying, dog-faced pony soldier”, and then told a Detroit factory worker that he was “full of sh**” just weeks later.  This is the very best that the party can muster, and now the onus is on their operatives to keep the Biden dream alive…for what that’s worth.

That’s why they paraded out a similarly archaic-tongued pundit to try to defend Biden’s recent insinuation that “you ain’t black” if you’re considering voting for Donald Trump.

Friday on MSNBC’s “The 11th Hour,” Democratic strategist James Carville was dismissive of comments made by presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden earlier in the day, which he told radio’s “The Breakfast Club” if one did not vote for him, they “ain’t black.”

Carville acknowledged it was a “dumb thing” for the former vice president to say. However, he downplayed the long-term political consequences.

“Look, it was kind of a dumb thing to say,” Carville said. “And he said I’m sorry. I said it. This is him. The effects of this are through the weekend, all right? This is not going to be mean diddly squat in the long-term. And Gene is right. You’ve got one guy telling people to take Clorox and a drug that is ill-advised against. It is not an equivalency, but the Democrats — we love to go, ‘Oh God, oh God, Biden is terrible. He messed up. What are we going to do?’”

One can only imagine what other political travesties don’t “mean diddly squat” to James Carville these days.

Continue Reading

Politics

Comey in The Crosshairs Again as Wray Opens Probe into FBI’s Handling of Gen. Flynn

Now that’s how you drain a swamp!

Published

on

President Trump told the world that he was going to Washington to drain the swamp, and that is precisely what he’s doing.

And no single case is quite as swampy as the one surrounding former national security advisor Michael Flynn, who was charged with lying to the FBI but later had his charges dropped by the Department of Justice after it was revealed that the FBI has considered tricking him into lying.  Then, when that evidence wasn’t strong enough, the Bureau appeared to have rewritten their assessment of the interview in order to send Flynn up the river.

Despite the DOJ’s action, Judge Emmet Sullivan is continuing to exploit his position to keep Flynn on the ropes.

Amid this continued kerfuffle, the FBI is now launching their own investigation into what exactly happened during that 2017 probe.

The FBI announced Friday that Director Chris Wray has ordered an internal review of the handling of the bureau’s investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn, which will include examining whether current FBI employees “engaged in misconduct.”

“FBI Director Christopher Wray today ordered the Bureau’s Inspection Division to conduct an after-action review of the Michael Flynn investigation,” the bureau said in a statement.

The review will be handled by the bureau’s Inspection Division, the FBI said. That division is similar to an internal affairs office in a police department.

The situation is no joke, either.

The bureau said the “after-action review” will have a two-fold purpose: evaluating the FBI’s role in the case and determining whether any “current employees engaged in misconduct,” as well as identifying whether any “improvements” might be warranted to FBI procedures.

“Although the FBI does not have the prosecutorial authority to bring a criminal case, the Inspection Division can and will evaluate whether any current onboard employees engaged in actions that might warrant disciplinary measures,” the FBI said.

And while the “current employees” line may only apply to the mysterious Joe Pientka, there is little dope that whatever Wray finds will have former Director James Comey’s fingerprints all over it, which could in turn prompt a congressional investigation as well.

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Become an insider


Best of the Month

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

Send this to a friend