Posted on Oct 28, 2019
Trump defends keeping ‘leaker’ Schiff, Pelosi out of the loop on al-Baghdadi raid
642
21
32
8
8
0
This has got to stop. It seems to be a repeat of the North .V. South.
Trump defends keeping ‘leaker’ Schiff, Pelosi out of the loop on al-Baghdadi raid
Posted from foxnews.comPosted in these groups: 
Government
Government
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 5
2
2
0
I think one of the reason he wasn't told is that particular committee cannot do anything because of the impeachment inquiries and they probably haven't received any threat briefs in a few weeks.
(2)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
MAJ Byron Oyler, CW3 Michael Bodnar, & Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth:
First, it's not a Constitutional requirement, it is a statutory requirement under 50 USC §3093 (not under the War Powers Act). Second, this isn't the first time a president took quick action to take out a terrorist leader--Osama bin Ladin comes to mind, and the Group of Eight were notified on that operation. Third, the notification doesn't have to be a "brief", but can consist of a notice that "we're conducting an operation to take out the ISIS leader." Fourth, the War Powers Act issue is a red herring that doesn't apply to this situation. Fifth, this is the first time that one party was notified and the opposition party was not. Sixth, I would challenge any of you to post a single example of a Congress Member compromising an on-going black/covert op.
First, it's not a Constitutional requirement, it is a statutory requirement under 50 USC §3093 (not under the War Powers Act). Second, this isn't the first time a president took quick action to take out a terrorist leader--Osama bin Ladin comes to mind, and the Group of Eight were notified on that operation. Third, the notification doesn't have to be a "brief", but can consist of a notice that "we're conducting an operation to take out the ISIS leader." Fourth, the War Powers Act issue is a red herring that doesn't apply to this situation. Fifth, this is the first time that one party was notified and the opposition party was not. Sixth, I would challenge any of you to post a single example of a Congress Member compromising an on-going black/covert op.
(0)
(0)
Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth
Capt Gregory Prickett - OK even under the statutory requirement 50 USC §3093, he still met the limitations and notified after the fact. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...he is legal and clean on this action
CW3 Michael Bodnar
CW3 Michael Bodnar
(1)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth - I never said it was illegal, and in fact commented on the fact that it was legal on another thread. I still will point out that this is the first time that one party was notified and the other wasn't, and that I'm unaware of any cases where a Congress critter has compromised a mission.
(0)
(0)
Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth
Capt Gregory Prickett - We agree on the congressional leaks...I too have never heard of it but there is always a first and right now there isn't any trust on either parties side...both are to blame for that...no one holds a monopoly on that.
I am trying to look at this from the Military Op side if it and from that view, the fewer that know about it the better for the success of the mission and the operators executing it...especially this high value of a target. Cheers.
I am trying to look at this from the Military Op side if it and from that view, the fewer that know about it the better for the success of the mission and the operators executing it...especially this high value of a target. Cheers.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
0
0
0
Actually, Capt. Prickett -- you are incorrect. … So, let me bore you with the LAW: (specifically as to your reference, "...§3093. Presidential approval and reporting of covert actions):
-
“(a) Presidential findings
-
“The President may not authorize the conduct of a covert action by departments, agencies, or entities of the United States Government - UNLESS - the President determines such an action is necessary to support identifiable foreign policy objectives of the United States and is important to the national security of the United States, which determination shall be set forth in a finding that shall meet each of the following conditions:
-
“(1) Each finding shall be in writing, unless immediate action by the United States is required and time does not permit the preparation of a written finding, in which case a written record of the President's decision shall be contemporaneously made and shall be reduced to a written finding as soon as possible but in no event more than 48 hours after the decision is made."
-
Nice try ... however, ALL aspects of law with regard to the Al Baghdadi kill were complied with. 'Have a nice day.
-
“(a) Presidential findings
-
“The President may not authorize the conduct of a covert action by departments, agencies, or entities of the United States Government - UNLESS - the President determines such an action is necessary to support identifiable foreign policy objectives of the United States and is important to the national security of the United States, which determination shall be set forth in a finding that shall meet each of the following conditions:
-
“(1) Each finding shall be in writing, unless immediate action by the United States is required and time does not permit the preparation of a written finding, in which case a written record of the President's decision shall be contemporaneously made and shall be reduced to a written finding as soon as possible but in no event more than 48 hours after the decision is made."
-
Nice try ... however, ALL aspects of law with regard to the Al Baghdadi kill were complied with. 'Have a nice day.
(0)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
Since you posted this twice, here's the answer I already posted:
Exactly what did I state that was incorrect? The president is required to inform the Group of 8 under 50 USCA 3093. Obama informed them on the bin Ladin raid, beforehand. This is the first time a president notified members of his party, and did not notify the members of the other party.
Fourth, and the one you did not answer, please provide a single example of a military operation that has been compromised by a leak by a member of Congress.
Please point out where I stated that Trump violated the law that I cited, or that there were no exceptions. You cited law that was incorrect, claiming that it was covered under the AUMF, and presumably the War Powers Act. It's not.
I used very specific language because I was talking about the law. You did not pay attention, and you have made assumptions that are incorrect. First you assumed that I made an assertion that Trump violated the law, and I did not, because I understand the law. Hell, I've commented on other threads that there was no legal violation, just a breaking with established precedent. Second, you assumed that you know the law better than I do, which is demonstrably false. Third, you have the arrogance to then post your misunderstanding of what was written and the law I cited, and came to yet another incorrect conclusion.
Have a nice day.
Exactly what did I state that was incorrect? The president is required to inform the Group of 8 under 50 USCA 3093. Obama informed them on the bin Ladin raid, beforehand. This is the first time a president notified members of his party, and did not notify the members of the other party.
Fourth, and the one you did not answer, please provide a single example of a military operation that has been compromised by a leak by a member of Congress.
Please point out where I stated that Trump violated the law that I cited, or that there were no exceptions. You cited law that was incorrect, claiming that it was covered under the AUMF, and presumably the War Powers Act. It's not.
I used very specific language because I was talking about the law. You did not pay attention, and you have made assumptions that are incorrect. First you assumed that I made an assertion that Trump violated the law, and I did not, because I understand the law. Hell, I've commented on other threads that there was no legal violation, just a breaking with established precedent. Second, you assumed that you know the law better than I do, which is demonstrably false. Third, you have the arrogance to then post your misunderstanding of what was written and the law I cited, and came to yet another incorrect conclusion.
Have a nice day.
(0)
(0)
Sgt (Join to see)
Operative word in your statement - "beforehand" - which is not required. And, as to naming anyone who has leaked information about a spec-ops activity, that question has zero relevance. Further, who is Obama? How is "Obama" is relevant to the Al Baghdadi kill, exactly? ... There has been no violation of law... end of liberal fairytale. Have a nice day.
(0)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
Sgt (Join to see) - actually notification beforehand is required, unless there are certain findings made. You may want to consult with a lawyer on the law, before you start making statements that are legally incorrect. See 50 USC 3093(c)(1) ("as soon as possible after such approval and before the initiation of the covert action. . .") That little quote can be shortened to "beforehand", which is required, unless notice should only be given to the Group of 8, id, at (c)(2); or unless it is delayed under (c)(3), where the president must provide a signed statement to each of the Group of 8 explaining why notification was delayed.
"Are you feeling satisfied now, Teddy? Cause I can go on busting you up all night..." Mike McDermott
You're not going to get ahead on this Vic. I wouldn't presume to tell you about banking. I would recommend that you not presume to tell me about the law.
"Are you feeling satisfied now, Teddy? Cause I can go on busting you up all night..." Mike McDermott
You're not going to get ahead on this Vic. I wouldn't presume to tell you about banking. I would recommend that you not presume to tell me about the law.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google