Posted on Oct 28, 2019
Trump defends keeping ‘leaker’ Schiff, Pelosi out of the loop on al-Baghdadi raid
765
18
22
7
7
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 5 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)
MAJ Byron Oyler
Capt Gregory Prickett - It is a courtesy to inform these people and that is lacking from most in national politics.
(0)
(0)
Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth
Capt Gregory Prickett - Neither party was fully informed. He told some republicans that something big was happening...but he din'teven tell them full disclosure. He doesn't have to tell anything under the War Powers Act (The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States)...he just has to notify them after the fact and he did.
Me...I wouldn't have told anyone outside the JCS..period. In Spec Ops the less that know the better, safer, and more successful the op will be. I don't think Obama should have told any one either when he did it...when you tell too many people you risk the lives of the raiders on the mission and mission failure. I believe this was the right call for Trump to make on this one. Any other op maybe but this one was for the head of ISIS and just couldn't risk any leaks.
Me...I wouldn't have told anyone outside the JCS..period. In Spec Ops the less that know the better, safer, and more successful the op will be. I don't think Obama should have told any one either when he did it...when you tell too many people you risk the lives of the raiders on the mission and mission failure. I believe this was the right call for Trump to make on this one. Any other op maybe but this one was for the head of ISIS and just couldn't risk any leaks.
(1)
(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)
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)
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)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google