Comey’s actions are ‘unworthy’ of the FBI, says former Assistant Director and 24-year veteran agent

In this image released by ABC News, former FBI director James Comey appears at an interview with George Stephanopoulos that will air during a primetime "20/20" special on Sunday, April 15, 2018 on the ABC Television Network. Comey's book, "A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership," will be released on Tuesday. (Ralph Alswang/ABC via AP)  (©2018 American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Through his actions during his relatively brief tenure as FBI Director and now in penning and promoting a salacious “tell all” book, it is now quite evident that James Comey’s higher loyalty is to James Comey, and James Comey alone. It is not, by any stretch of the imagination, to the FBI, where I served for 24 years, or to the selfless men and women who work there – all of whom he has tossed, once again, into the middle of a political firestorm.
The ancient Greeks had a word for the excessive vanity that would cause someone to place his interests before those of his country and those of the dedicated public servants he was called to lead – it’s called hubris.
There is no other plausible explanation for his series of ill-advised actions, beginning with the then-director’s now-infamous press conference in July 2016, when he acted contrary to 28 US Code Section 547, Section 9 of the United States Attorneys Manual and over 100 years of established practice between the FBI and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). He did this in declaring, without ever consulting with a DOJ prosecutor, that Hillary Clinton was un-prosecutable in the wake of a kid gloves investigation.
His actions are unworthy of the storied law enforcement agency I served for close to a quarter of a century, and they shocked many of us who worked with and around him during his years serving in the Department of Justice.
The statutes cited above clearly state that the U.S. Justice Department and the United States Attorneys have plenary authority to make prosecution decisions. In contravention of this wisely drawn system of checks and balances, then-FBI Director Comey held his unprecedented press conference and in doing so, he needlessly injected the FBI into one of the most volatile political controversies of our time.

The public needs to understand that this is really not how the FBI operates within today’s criminal justice system. Jim Comey and his discredited inner circle in no way represent the FBI and its dedicated men and women.

Comey's rationale that he took these actions because Attorney General Loretta Lynch was "conflicted" doesn't hold water with anyone possessing even a rudimentary knowledge of the federal criminal justice system.
The American system was designed by our founding fathers to interject an objective party with legal training between those who are investigating and those who decide whether to invoke the legal process to deprive someone of his or her life, liberty or property.
This brilliant system, which Comey trashed, was designed to keep the FBI and other law enforcement agencies out of politics. Now his book renews the controversy to the detriment of nearly everyone but Jim Comey, who is clearly out to repair his tarnished reputation and mete out some payback for his dismissal by President Trump.
Sunday’s interview on ABC – and every action he has taken since usurping the role of the Justice Department – has only thrust the FBI deeper into the political crucible. It has also apparently reinforced Comey’s misplaced belief that he, and he alone, is better equipped than anyone else in the criminal justice system to make important decisions.
As former director of the FBI, Comey is very familiar with the recusal process and knows full well that if Attorney General Lynch was “conflicted,” the legally appropriate process was for her to delegate decision-making authority to another person inside the Justice Department.  He never gave her a chance. Instead of allowing her to fulfill her responsibilities and do the right thing, Comey effectively took her off the hook and placed the FBI on it.
He also forever tainted any future prosecution of Hillary Clinton because he, the head of the lead investigative agency, had basically absolved the former Secretary of State of any wrongdoing.
Further evidence of Comey's ego overriding sound judgment is his willingness to leak and tolerate leaks among his inner circle. Leaking information concerning sensitive investigations is a violation of federal law. As the DOJ Inspector General stated in the Andrew McCabe investigation, such leaks serve no public interest whatsoever – aside, of course, from serving the private agendas of McCabe and Comey.
Comey's book removes any doubt that personal animus towards Donald Trump and acute sensitivity to the political environment permeated his inner circle and drove key actions and decisions. Regardless of how one feels about Trump’s presidency, Comey’s petty references to the president’s physical appearance and other aspects of his personality are far more revealing about Comey than anyone else.
He describes Donald Trump as acting like a mob boss and not “tethered to the truth.” He pronounces the president a liar and “morally unfit to be president.”
If he truly believed this was so, then Jim Comey had a golden opportunity on several occasions to act on conviction and either forcefully stand up to the president or resign on principle. The truth is that Jim Comey relished the role of FBI Director and wanted to keep his job, so he remained silent until he miraculously found the courage to speak up while out promoting his book.
I am also particularly concerned that Comey’s grandstanding could be devastating to ongoing prosecutions and investigations by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.  Our country deserves to know the truth about how extensively the Russians interfered in our election and who may have assisted them. And Comey, as an attorney and officer of the court, knows that as a potential key witness it is highly inappropriate and potentially prejudicial to the prosecution for him to comment on matters in which he played such a significant role – and may have to testify about.
It is ironically Comey and his band – including McCabe, Lisa Page and Peter Skrozk (he of the infamous “insurance policy” again Trump being elected) – who will most likely be called as the first witnesses for the defense in any prosecution that the Special Counsel might bring forward.
When the director of the FBI, his second in command, the national security lawyer assigned to keep the case within legal boundaries and the lead case agent all express a strong bias or even hatred toward the target(s) of the investigation, they become key defense witnesses. Juries will take note of this bias and question everything that stems from it, meaning Comey has carelessly and needlessly complicated Special Counsel Mueller’s mission.
Comey’s book will sell because these kinds of tabloid stories always do. There may have been a time and place for him to tell his story, but now is not that time. His “tell all” is beneath the office of the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who does indeed owe a “higher loyalty” – to the criminal justice system and the mission of the FBI.
Jim Comey’s attempt at burnishing his legacy has thrust the FBI back into the political arena even as current Director Chris Wray patiently and doggedly tries – in the models of former directors Robert Mueller, Louie Freeh and William Webster – to extricate the agency from this political environment and return to established procedures and processes free of even a hint of bias or grandstanding.
The public needs to understand that this is really not how the FBI operates within today’s criminal justice system. Jim Comey and his discredited inner circle in no way represent the FBI and its dedicated men and women.
FBI Agents may have political and personal opinions but they check them at the door as they leave their homes to conduct the public’s business. FBI employees serve in a complex, global environment, many in war zones and international hotspots. They provide the most skilled and professional law enforcement services in the world. They do not deserve to have their professionalism and objectivity called into question because of the actions of Jim Comey, whose time as FBI director was an aberration.
It is very painful for this FBI veteran to say that the Comey manuscript, with its petty and gratuitous observations, self-aggrandizement and moralizing, sadly displays an ego that is loyal first and foremost to its author.
Chris E. Swecker served 24 years in FBI as Special Agent. He retired from the Bureau as Assistant Director with responsibility over all FBI Criminal Investigations. He currently practices law in Charlotte, N.C.

Russia, Syria block inspectors from chemical weapons attack site, watchdog says

Officials in Syria and Russia allegedly blocked investigators from entering the scene of a suspected chemical attack, a watchdog group said Monday.
The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) said that officials from both countries have cited “pending security issues” for preventing the independent watchdog from entering Douma, the Syrian city where U.S. and French authorities believe a poison gas attack occurred on April 7.
US MISSILE ATTACK ON SYRIA CAPTURED IN STUNNING PENTAGON VIDEO
Instead of inviting them to enter the city, Syrian officials have offered them the chance to interview 22 people as witnesses, Ahmet Uzumcu, Director-General of OPCW, told an executive council meeting of the group on Monday.
He added that he hoped "all necessary arrangements will be made ... to allow the team to deploy to Douma as soon as possible."
The U.S. and France, along with Syrian activists, rescuers and medics, have said the poison gas attack in Douma, led by the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, killed at least 40 people and injured more than 500, a rebel-held town located roughly 6 miles northeast of the Syrian capital of Damascus.
President Trump labeled Assad’s actions, which resumed amid an offensive by Syrian government forces after the collapse of a truce, “are not the actions of a man,” but “are the crimes of a monster instead.”
The Syrian government and its Russian backers have strongly rejected allegations of a chemical attack, questioning whether a chemical weapons attack even took place and even claiming that purported evidence of a chemical weapons attack was fabricated.
PUTIN WARNS 'CHAOS' WILL ENSUE IF WEST STRIKES SYRIA AGAIN
In response to the attack, U.S., U.K. and French forces launched precision military strikes in Syria, targeting three locations which the Pentagon said made up the heart of Assad’s programs to develop and produce chemical weapons.
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov suggested Monday that OPCW inspectors couldn’t get quick approval to visit the site of the alleged attack because of airstrikes from the West.

A man rides past destruction in the town of Douma, the site of a suspected chemical weapons attack, near Damascus, Syria, Monday, April 16, 2018.  (AP Photo/Hassan Ammar)

"As far as I understand, what is hampering a speedy resolution of this problem is the consequences of the illegal, unlawful military action that Great Britain and other countries conducted on Saturday," Ryabkov said.
However, United Nations spokesman Stephane Dujarric said the U.N. has "provided the necessary clearances for the OPCW team to go about its work in Douma. We have not denied the team any request for it to go to Douma,” and U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres last week reaffirmed his support for an OPCW investigation.

More on Syria...

Government forces and Russian troops have been deployed in Douma, which is now controlled by the Syrian government. Opposition activists have said the troops might have removed any evidence of chemical weapons' use, a claim Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has called false.
Discussions over the suspected site of the chemical attack come after Syrian state-run television reported that Syrian air defenses were confronting a new “aggression” over Homs, where the Shayrat Air Base is located, but did not say who carried out the alleged airstrikes.
But Pentagon spokesman Marine Maj. Adrian Rankine-Galloway told Fox News on Monday that “There are no US or Coalition operations in that area [Homs],” adding: “We don’t have anything additional to provide.”

'Full Metal Jacket' actor R. Lee Ermey dies at age 74

R. Lee Ermey, a former Marine Corps drill instructor known to millions of moviegoers as the sadistic Gunnery Sergeant Hartman in Stanley Kubrick's "Full Metal Jacket," died Sunday morning, according to his longtime manager. He was 74.

In a statement posted on Twitter, Bill Rogin said Ermey had died due to complications from pneumonia.

Statement from R. Lee Ermey's long time manager, Bill Rogin:

It is with deep sadness that I regret to inform you all that R. Lee Ermey ("The Gunny") passed away this morning from complications of pneumonia. He will be greatly missed by all of us.

Semper Fi, Gunny. Godspeed. pic.twitter.com/vf4O78JKmb

— R. Lee Ermey (@RLeeErmey) April 15, 2018

"He will be greatly missed by all of us," Rogin wrote. "Semper Fi, Gunny. Godspeed."
A Kansas native, Ermey enlisted in the Marine Corps in 1961 at age 17. He served for 11 years, including 14 months in Vietnam, before he was discharged in 1972. He served as a technical adviser in Francis Ford Coppola's 1979 Vietnam War epic, "Apocalypse Now," in which he also had a small role as a helicopter pilot.
But Ermey didn't get his big break until eight years later, in Kubrick's own take on Vietnam. He was originally supposed to be a technical adviser, but Kubrick offered him the role of Gunnery Sergeant Hartman after seeing a demo tape of Ermey railing at extras while tennis balls flew at him.
In his role as a drill instructor breaking in new Marines at boot camp on Parris Island, S.C., Ermey roared his way into film history by berating his unfortunate charges.
"Here you are all equally worthless," Ermey/Hartman says by way of introduction. "And my orders are to weed out all non-hackers who do not pack the gear to serve in my beloved Corps. Do you maggots understand that?"
The main target of Ermey's wrath is the unfortunate, overweight Private Pyle, played by Vincent D'Onofrio.
"Were you born a fat, slimy, scumbag puke piece of s---," Private Pyle, or did you have to work on it?" the gunnery sergeant asks in one scene.
But having turned Private Pyle into a killing machine, Hartman is helpless when his own creation turns on him, gunning him down the night after boot camp graduation after Hartman asks: "What is your major malfunction, numbnuts?"
Kubrick told Rolling Stone that 50 percent of Ermey's dialogue in the film was his own.
"In the course of hiring the marine recruits, we interviewed hundreds of guys. We lined them all up and did an improvisation of the first meeting with the drill instructor. They didn't know what he was going to say, and we could see how they reacted. Lee came up with, I don't know, 150 pages of insults," Kubrick said.
D'Onofrio and "Full Metal Jacket" co-star Matthew Modine tweeted their condolences late Sunday, with Modine quoting the poet Dylan Thomas.

#SemperFidelis Always faithful. Always loyal.

Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

RIP amigo. ✌🏽PVT. Joker #FullMetalJacket @RLeeErmey @StanleyKubrick @vincentdonofrio @ViKu1111 pic.twitter.com/AYbWQmLxy1

— Matthew Modine (@MatthewModine) April 15, 2018

Ermey was the real deal. The knowledge of him passing brings back wonderful memories of our time together. @RLeeErmey @StanleyKubrick @FMJDiary @MatthewModine @AdamBaldwin pic.twitter.com/XgsItiMqCP

— Vincent D'Onofrio (@vincentdonofrio) April 16, 2018

"Full Metal Jacket" earned Ermey a Golden Globe nomination, as well as a career playing authority figures -- from Mayor Tilman in 1988's "Mississippi Burning" to little green army man Sarge in the more family-friendly "Toy Story."
In all, Ermey racked up more than 60 credits in television and film, including apperances in "Se7en," "Prefontaine," and "Toy Soldiers." He also hosted the History Channel series "Mail Call" and "Lock N' Load with R. Lee Ermey."
An outspoken conservative, Ermey spoke to Fox News in 2016 about being "blackballed" from Hollywood over his political views.
"I've had a very fruitful career. I've done over 70 feature films," he said. "I've done over 200 episodes of [Outdoor Channel series 'GunnyTime']... and then [Hollywood] found out that I'm a conservative."
Actually, he corrected, "I'm an Independent, but I said something bad about the president. I had something unsavory to say about the president's administration, and even though I did vote for him the first time around, I was blackballed."
Ermey, who was an NRA board member, said at the time that his association with the organization and his disapproval of President Obama cost him acting jobs.
"Do you realize I have not done a movie in five to six years? Why? Because I was totally blackballed by the ... liberals in Hollywood," he alleged. "They can destroy you. They're hateful people [who] don't just not like you, they want to take away your livelihood ... that's why I live up in the desert on a dirt road ... I don't have to put up with their crap."
"He will be greatly missed by all of us," Rogin told The Associated Press Sunday. "It is a terrible loss that nobody was prepared for."
Rogin says that while his characters were often hard and principled, the real Ermey was a family man and a kind and gentle soul who supported the men and women who serve.

More California cities may join fight against state’s pro-illegal immigrant policies

More local governments in California appear to be resisting the state's efforts to prevent the Trump administration's immigration crackdown, reports said Monday.
At least a dozen local governments have already voted to either join or support the federal lawsuit against the state – or the approved resolutions opposing the state’s sanctuary law that limits police cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions took legal action against the state last month, targeting three state law statutes concerning illegal immigrants. The DOJ argued that the laws are unconstitutional and a “plain violation of federal statute and common sense.”
But another blow to California’s state government may be coming this week, with the city of Los Alamitos in Orange Country voting Monday to reconfirm its commitment to opt out of the state law.
Los Alamitos was the first city to rebel against the state and already voted in favor of exempting itself from the sanctuary state law last month. To officially approve the motion, the council of Los Alamitos will have to vote again on Monday.
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TOWN STANDS UP TO STATE, VOTES TO REJECT SANCTUARY LAW
The San Diego County Board of Supervisors will decide Tuesday whether to join the Trump administration’s lawsuit against the state.
Most local governments siding with the Trump administration are located in Orange County-- a Republican stronghold-- but some other cities across the state have showed signs of support.
MORE CALIFORNIA CITIES LOOKING TO REJECT STATE’S SANCTUARY LAW
The city of Escondido in neighboring San Diego County has recently voted to support the lawsuit along with the small city of Ripon in the state's Central Valley.
Efforts to thwart the sanctuary laws have energized California’s Republicans, who were long wary of taking a hardline stance towards immigration due to the state’s changing demographics.
"When the attorney general of the United States decides to take a firm position against it, I think that gave a signal to a lot of us that, 'Hey, California is on the wrong side of this thing,'" said Fred Whitaker, chairman of the Republican Party in Orange County.
"The mobilization that could come from introducing immigration debates into county political races may be a critical element in a year like 2018 when Democrats will likely be more mobilized than Republicans," said Louis DeSipio, a political science professor at the University of California, Irvine.

Pentagon presented Trump with plan to take out Russian air defenses in Syria, report says

Although the recent Syrian airstrikes were double the size of last year’s, President Trump reportedly selected one of the more restrained proposals designed by the Pentagon.
The Wall Street Journal, citing unnamed sources, reported that Trump was presented with a wide array of options. There were intense discussions on the best approach after Defense Secretary Jim Mattis presented the three military options, the report said.
Trump chose a restrained response. The paper reported that the most expansive proposal included airstrikes on Russian air defense capabilities in Syria. The attack would have been three times the size of the operation carried out—which included 100 advanced missiles launched at three targets.
Trump reportedly wanted his team to consider the strikes on Iranian and Russian targets, but Mattis resisted. Mattis reportedly warned of a possible Russian and Iranian response.
Russia has military forces, including air defenses, in several areas of Syria to support President Bashar Assad in his long war against anti-government rebels.
The nighttime Syria assault was carefully limited to minimize civilian casualties and avoid direct conflict with Syria's key ally, Russia, but confusion arose over the extent to which Washington warned Moscow in advance.
The Pentagon said it gave no explicit warning. The U.S. ambassador in Moscow, John Huntsman, said in a video, "Before we took action, the United States communicated with" Russia to "reduce the danger of any Russian or civilian casualties."
As of Monday morning, neither Syria nor its Russian or Iranian allies retaliated, Pentagon officials said.
The U.S.-led operation won broad Western support. The NATO alliance gave its full backing; NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said in Brussels that the attack was about ensuring that chemical weapons cannot be used with impunity.

Comey calls Trump 'morally unfit to be president,' says he wouldn't have changed handling of Clinton probe

In his first interview since being fired, former FBI Director James Comey described President Trump as an ego-driven liar who treats women like “meat” and is “morally unfit to be president.”
“I don’t think he’s medically unfit to be president. I think he’s morally unfit to be president,” Comey said in a wide-ranging sit-down Sunday night with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos.  “A person who sees moral equivalence in Charlottesville, who talks about and treats women like they’re pieces of meat, who lies constantly about matters big and small and insists the American people believe him - that person is not fit to be president of the United States on moral grounds.”
Ahead of the interview, Trump fired off a series of tweets calling the country’s former top cop a “slimeball,” a liar and directly refuted claims he asked Comey for his loyalty.
During Sunday’s televised interview, Comey also weighed in on the salacious – and unverified - Russian dossier, as well as his reason for going public about the probe into Hillary Clinton’s private email server in the final days of the 2016 election.
Clinton- as well as a large number of Democrats – have blamed her November defeat on Comey’s actions.
“I hope not – but the honest answer is, it wouldn’t have changed the way I think about it,” Comey said. He added he hoped people would read his book “A Higher Loyalty” and put themselves in his shoes.
Comey claimed he wasn’t trying to favor one candidate over the other but instead tried to do “the right thing,” though he admitted his decision was influenced by the assumption Clinton would beat Trump in the election.
“I don’t remember spelling it out, but it had to have been, that she’s going to be elected president and if I hide this from the American people, she’ll be illegitimate the moment she’s elected, the moment this comes out,” he told Stephanopoulos.
Comey, though, seemed to be aware of the weight of his action.
“I walked around vaguely sick to my stomach, feeling beaten down,” he said. “I felt like I was totally alone, that everybody hated me. And that there wasn’t a way out because it really was the right thing to do.”
Comey also recounted his initial interactions with Trump over the unverified 35-page Russian dossier that was compiled by former British Intelligence officer Christopher Steele and funded in part by the Democratic National Committee and Clinton’s campaign. The dossier detailed a graphic account of Trump with Russian prostitutes during a 2013 trip to Moscow.
“I’m about to meet with a person who doesn’t know me, who’s just been elected president of the United States… from my watching him during the … campaign could be volatile,” Comey said. “And I’m about to talk to him about allegations that he was involved with prostitutes in Moscow and that the Russians taped it and have leverage over him.”
Comey claimed during a Jan. 27, 2017 private dinner meeting, Trump asked him to disprove the allegations in the dossier.
 “He said, you know, ‘If there’s even a 1 percent chance my wife thinks that’s true, that’s terrible.”
Comey added, “‘I remember thinking, ‘How could your wife think there's a 1 percent chance you were with prostitutes peeing on each other in Moscow?’ I'm a flawed human being, but there is literally zero chance that my wife would think that was true. So, what kind of marriage to what kind of man does your wife think [that] there's only a 99 percent chance you didn't do that?”
Comey said Trump told him, “I may order you to investigate that.”
He allegedly advised the president to “be careful about that because it might create a narrative that we’re investigating you personally, and second, it’s very difficult to prove something didn’t happen.”
Comey’s interview with Stephanopoulos is part of a big media blitz designed to promote his book.
In released excerpts, Comey compares Trump to a mafia boss and questions why the president initially refused to acknowledge Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election. He also takes aim at Trump’s physical appearance, describing him as “slightly orange, with bright white half-moons under his eyes where I assumed he placed small tanning goggles.”
The White House has worked hard in recent weeks to discredit Comey.
Trump tweeted Sunday that Comey was the “WORST FBI Director in history, by far!,” suggested he should be behind bars and referred to him as “a man who always ends up badly and out of whack (he is not smart!).”
In 1996, Comey served as assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia during President Bill Clinton’s administration. In 2002, he was named U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York under President George W. Bush. In that role, he secured high-profile convictions including one against Martha Stewart for securities fraud, conspiracy and obstruction of justice.
A decade later, Comey was appointed by President Barack Obama and confirmed 93-1 by the Senate as FBI director.
He was fired on May 9, 2017 by Trump.
On Friday, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders called Comey’s credibility into question.
“This is nothing more than a poorly executed PR stunt by Comey to desperately rehabilitate his tattered reputation and enrich his own bank account by peddling a book that belongs in the bargain bin of the fiction section,” she said.
 “A Higher Loyalty” hits store shelves on Tuesday.

Democrats Sit On Their Hands Cartoons

Still Sitting and Still Crying.

The US attack on Syria is completely legal and utterly moral. Here’s what Trump’s critics need to know

Syria's President Bashar al-Assad is responsible for this.

Syria's President Bashar al-Assad is responsible for this.

President Trump’s calibrated and courageous decision to join France and Britain in striking chemical weapons targets in Syria before dawn Saturday drew support and opposition from members of Congress. Opponents have argued he should have sought congressional authorization for the military action in Syria. They are wrong.
President Trump’s action to attack Syria was exceptionally well-grounded legally. Self-evident moral authority supports using any reasonable means to protect innocents from the moral outrage of chemical weapons.
Ahead of the attack, Vice President Mike Pence personally notified House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis.; House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.; and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. He could not reach Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. He confirmed the limited nature, objectives and duration of the Syrian strike.
As Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and other U.S. officials made clear, America and our allies mounted a “one-off” attack to deter any future use of chemical weapons by Syria, a prerogative fully supported by international law.

President Trump’s thoughtful, well-planned, narrowly drawn and superbly executed strike on Syrian chemical weapons facilities wasted no time, ordnance or lives. Its purpose was clear, well-stated and well-served. It should be non-controversial. Still, he is attacked.

Neither President Trump nor anyone in his administration has suggested the onset of a long American military combat commitment in Syria.
But U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley reaffirmed America’s resolve to prevent any further use of chemical weapons. She said Saturday at the U.N.: “I spoke to the president this morning, and he said, ‘If the Syrian regime uses this poisonous gas again, the United States is locked and loaded.’”
Nevertheless, leading Democrats have been vocal in demanding congressional approval for any U.S. military involvement in Syria.
Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., the Democratic nominee for vice president in 2016, was quick to tweet: “Trump’s decision to launch airstrikes against Syria without Congress’ approval is illegal. We need to stop giving presidents a blank check to wage war. Today it’s Syria, but what’s going to stop him from bombing Iran or North Korea next?”
Kaine’s tweet is legally inept, and all but laughable, given that President Bill Clinton – husband of Kaine’s 2016 running mate, Hillary Clinton – undertook a long series of air strikes in Kosovo and elsewhere, without any congressional authorization or pretense to getting it.
Let’s cut to the nub: The 1973 War Powers Resolution was intended to dissuade presidents from long-duration combat engagements and insertion of large numbers of U.S. troops. The law grew out of a decade of U.S. combat in Vietnam. It presumes to require that presidents get congressional approval for military combat operations if they last more than 60 days.
Most legal scholars consider parts of the law unconstitutional. Presidents of both parties have generally demurred. No president has acceded to the law’s constitutionality.
That said, the interplay of executive and legislative branches on military matters – reflecting the constitutional balance between the Article II “commander-in-chief” powers and Congress’s Article I “declaration of war” powers – has always been respectful since Vietnam.
It was this time, also.
Yet some members of Congress still contend the War Powers Resolution has been triggered, or that President Trump must report to them before another strike.
This is nonsense. No president has been held to that standard, effectively transmuting the commander-in-chief’s authority to conduct limited duration, surgical strikes – consistent under international law and with allies – into a congressional prerogative.
Even the Authorization of Use of Military Force Act of 2001 – enacted after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks – is not relevant here. That law was intended to address, and thus authorized, counterterrorism operations on a major scale, within set limits.
The law, which has been roundly criticized in recent years, opened the door to attacks on state and non-state actors tied back to the Sept. 11 attacks – but without a time limit. Whatever one thinks of the law, our attack in Syria is not that kind of operation, nor is any such mass deployment in Syria under discussion.
Still, critics in Congress demand President Trump defend his Syria action and come to them for permission. They want, it seems, to further limit the president’s already limited ability to use the U.S. military to defend our nation, forcing him to get their authorization for what he did and any strikes that may lie ahead.
Frankly, this is unnecessary, wildly premature at best, and somewhat embarrassing.
Congressional Democrats seem unable to stop themselves. They must attack this president. It is now an article of faith with the party, even if not backed up by the Constitution.
President Trump’s thoughtful, well-planned, narrowly drawn and superbly executed strike on Syrian chemical weapons facilities wasted no time, ordnance or lives. Its purpose was clear, well-stated and well-served. It should be non-controversial. Still, he is attacked.
Famously, Sen. Arthur Vandenberg, R-Mich., said in 1947 that “we must stop partisan politics at the water’s edge,” explaining his support for Democratic President Harry Truman’s foreign policy.
Where has that traditional consensus gone? Democrats senselessly pile on, joined by a small band of anti-Trump Republicans. The specter of such internal division is odd. It must be to our allies.
Be sure of this: These frivolous claims of illegality are watched, maybe even fanned, by our worst adversaries. Anything that divides us helps them.
Some days, the head spins listening to official Washington go to war with itself. In this instance, leading Democratic critics of President Trump cannot just say “thank you and well done.”
They must, it seems, twist this legally justified, masterfully concluded operation – one that serves the best-long term interests of America and the world – into an act worthy of partisan resistance.
When will this stop? When will we think again, as Vandenberg did, about the importance of unity for national security, national security for preserving moral values, and both as a way for making the world a better, safer place? If not a consensus around this event, then when?
For his extraordinary, thoughtful and entirely legal strike on Syria’s chemical weapons infrastructure – establishing a new and higher level of credible deterrence to make the world a safer place – President Trump deserves our thanks, not our condemnation or attempts to limit his lawful authority as the commander-in-chief.