Rubio explains ridiculous reason Lee & Paul were angry over the briefing.

5
843

Yesterday, Senators Mike Lee and Rand Paul came out of the briefing about Soleimani’s termination angry, even suggesting they would join Democrats and vote for the War Powers Act.

It was unclear why they were so angry other than they found the meeting with the Secretary of Defense mark Esper, the Director of the CIA Gina Haspel, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley, “insulting.” They claimed it was unconstitutional since they couldn’t debate.

Marco Rubio explained that they left the false impression that it was because the information provided didn’t justify the Soleimani strike. That isn’t the case.

The reason is “because administration didn’t offer hypothetical scenario requiring congressional authorization for military action.”

That’s ridiculous. Hypothetical situations should never enter into it. They’re imaginary, and when it comes to defense, the President doesn’t have to consult Congress. He did NOT declare war and de-escalated.

Rubio posted a series of tweets explaining the Revolutionary Guards didn’t intend to kill. However, they like to hide behind their proxies and that’s still a threat.

Lee and Paul are starting to get very annoying. It’s unconstitutional for them to try and take power to defend the United States from the President. That is what Nancy’s various measures intend to do.

He also explained that they are calling the Chairman a “liar.”

Watch:

Vice President Mike Pence also addressed withholding the most secret information. [How could anyone trust these leakers in Congress?]


PowerInbox
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

5 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Rocketman
Guest
Rocketman
3 years ago

I’m going to have to disagree. Paul and Lee were actually complaining because they were given inadequate information and they couldn’t do their jobs. Yes, there are leakers in Congress but both of these men are not that kind of person. Besides, given all we know about some of the same men that were doing their best to get rid of Trump, should Lee and Paul just simply take their word at anything? “Trust us.” just doesn’t cut it.

Tim Kuehl
Guest
Tim Kuehl
3 years ago

Killing an enemy combatant during a Congress declared war is proper, legal, Constitutional and authorized by the Declaration of War on Terror by the US Congress, September 18, 2001. There has been no armistice, peace agreement or move by any branch of the US government to end this war so it is still ongoing. This war is not a war against any particular country but rather those who commit terrorist acts against the United State. Again, this war is still ongoing so killing another terrorist is legal! I might add, many members of Congress, all Democrats and especially Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, could be considered as giving aid and comfort to the enemy with their antics in support of Iran and other terrorists in general around the world.

The Prisoner
Guest
The Prisoner
3 years ago

Any tantrum from Lee should be ignored. I’m not sure what Paul’s position, whatever it is, there would be some reasoning. Rubio is also ignorable, a 10th grade mentality.

The dems are so awful that it makes the repubs seem reasonable, but the repub senators are also bad.

John Acord
Guest
John Acord
3 years ago

“Nancy, Can I shoot that rattler about to strike your leg?” then “Oh, Sorry Nancy, you told me to always tell you before I shoot.” I’ve called the doc with the antivenom.Should be here in an hour or two. Hope you can hang on.”

Greg
Guest
Greg
3 years ago

As the President stated today, there are times when circumstances are unfolding in such a quick manner that any notice to Congress would be impossible. So, should we have to wait for a declaration of War before taking any kind of action. These extreme pacifist Libertarians have no place in Congress. They could care less about the average American. It’s compounded by siding with Corporate profits over those same Americans.