Ignorant Democrat Representative Claims Trump's Iran Airstrikes Are Grounds For Impeachment

[j brown's body]

Following President Trump's airstrikes on sites in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, AOC impulsively called the action "grounds for impeachment".

"The President's disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers. He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations. It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment." said AOC.

Predictably, another dem representative, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, took issue with the bombing sorties ordered by the Commander-In-Chief:

"[Trump] misled the country about his intentions, failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East."
Clearly both representatives are ignorant of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which empowers the President to order military action if the following conditions are met:

• Notify Congress within 48 hours of committing forces to hostilities
• Withdraw those forces within 60–90 days unless Congress grants authorization or declares war.

Trump notified Congress within 2 hours of the strike, and U.S. forces (bombers) were withdrawn from Iran airspace within minutes of the strike, so both conditions of the War Powers Resolution were met.

In your opinion, would it be wise for AOC and House Minority Leader Jeffries proceed with filing Articles of Impeachment?

Suits me.

I would support an impeachment inquiry.

 

[Jason Warfield]

To be honest, the GOP are such bootlickers of his with no moral compass, right now it wouldn’t go anywhere if it did.

I’ve already made a post about the fact that the WarPowers Act has never been challenged by the SC directly so no one can say truthfully one way or the other if it is constitutional.

And yes, we can point to other past presidents who have done similar tho gs as Trump concerning air strikes, including Obama, so you can call out AOC…but…

We’ve seen the right go after Dem presidents with similar arguments.

So, tone down the outrage because it is manufactured.

 

[Boots]

To be honest, the GOP are such bootlickers of his with no moral compass, right now it wouldn’t go anywhere if it did.

I’ve already made a post about the fact that the WarPowers Act has never been challenged by the SC directly so no one can say truthfully one way or the other if it is constitutional.

And yes, we can point to other past presidents who have done similar tho gs as Trump concerning air strikes, including Obama, so you can call out AOC…but…

We’ve seen the right go after Dem presidents with similar arguments.

So, tone down the outrage because it is manufactured.

Including AOC's outrage.

 

[Boots]

This rationale does not in any way apply to the military strikes against Iran.

How so?

 

[TamleeB]

I am all for AOC continuing on her mission to impeach Trump. It is just the perfect direction for the Democrats to head.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Following President Trump's airstrikes on sites in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, AOC impulsively called the action "grounds for impeachment".

"The President's disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers. He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations. It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment." said AOC.

Predictably, another dem representative, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, took issue with the bombing sorties ordered by the Commander-In-Chief:

"[Trump] misled the country about his intentions, failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East."
Clearly both representatives are ignorant of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which empowers the President to order military action if the following conditions are met:

• Notify Congress within 48 hours of committing forces to hostilities
• Withdraw those forces within 60–90 days unless Congress grants authorization or declares war.

Trump notified Congress within 2 hours of the strike, and U.S. forces (bombers) were withdrawn from Iran airspace within minutes of the strike, so both conditions of the War Powers Resolution were met.

In your opinion, would it be wise for AOC and House Minority Leader Jeffries proceed with filing Articles of Impeachment?

Stand by for any number of people to blather on about how the question is "moot" because the Republican-controlled Congres won't do anything about it.

But yes, he should have sought congressional consent, as there was no invasion requiring imediate action. The fact that presidents can just launch military action on a whim just because they're not "declaring war" flies in the face of the constitutional requirement that Congress approve of military action.

 

[Athanasius68]

The 2001 AUMF authorizes the use of force against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks, such as al-Qaeda, specifically those responsible for planning, authorizing, committing, aiding the 9/11 attacks, or harboring those that did.

Iran was not responsible for planning, authorizing, committing, aiding the 9/11 attacks, or harboring those that did, so that 2001 AUMF does not apply.

What Trump did by attacking Iran's nuclear facilities was a violation of the Constitution.

I demand you cite the section in the authorization from 2001 that gives the President the authorization to engage in an offensive military action against the Iranian government directly. If you cannot do this, then you must admit to me and everyone else here that Trump violated the Constitution.

It's long been known that Iran harbored and hid al queda.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

It's long been known that Iran harbored and hid al queda.

There is no evidence that the Iranian government harbored or hid al-Qaeda members who were involved in the 9/11 attacks. And that was what the 2001 AUMF was about.

The military strike against Iran was not legal, and represents a violation of the Constitution by Trump, which can be added to the list of many violations.

Also, just as a matter of common sense, it seems really stupid to allow a AUMF to sit around for some future President to invoke it 24 years later, on a whim, for an entirely different problem, just because the future President thinks it will play well on Fox News.

This conversation would be easier if you just admitted you don't give a shit about the Constitution and seek to make Trump a dictator.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

How so?

This rises to the level of a war.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Excellent post.

The WaPo confirms my assertion that Trump's order for U.S. military ops was not out of the ordinary, and Congress had the power to stop it if they decided to.

"Over the past 20 years, Congress has never acted to prohibit or restrict military action. To the contrary, on Nov. 1, 2023, the House of Representatives passed a resolution — by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 354 to 53 — declaring that “it is the policy of the United States … to use all means necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”

and

"If Congress wanted to ensure that the U.S. would not proceed with the strike, it could have acted, and it has the legal authority to halt further engagement if it acts now."

1. It's an Op-Ed.

2. The vote the Op-Ed refers to is only a House resolution and it has no legal weight.

3. It's not true that Congress could have acted to prevent the strike. The Trump administration did not give Congress much advance notice. They gave them what they referred to as "courtesy" calls to only a handful of leaders.

4. Congress does have the authority to act now to prevent further strikes, but the fact Congress has not acted does not mean Trump's initial military strike was constitutional.

5. The military strike against Iran was completely out of the ordinary, and has the potential to lead to a major war that will last a long time.

The attack against Iran was an illegal, unconstitutional violation by the Trump administration.

 

[Athanasius68]

There is no evidence that the Iranian government harbored or hid al-Qaeda members who were involved in the 9/11 attacks. And that was what the 2001 AUMF was about.

The military strike against Iran was not legal, and represents a violation of the Constitution by Trump, which can be added to the list of many violations.

Also, just as a matter of common sense, it seems really stupid to allow a AUMF to sit around for some future President to invoke it 24 years later, on a whim, for an entirely different problem, just because the future President thinks it will play well on Fox News.

This conversation would be easier if you just admitted you don't give a shit about the Constitution and seek to make Trump a dictator.

AUMF said the president could use force against any nation he determines had harbored any person or organization involved in the 911 attacks.

Al queda launched the 911 attacks.
Iran had harbored members of al queda.
Trumps actions fits the AUMF.

Whether the AUMF should be overhauled or repealed is a different issue.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

AUMF said the president could use force against any nation he determines had harbored any person or organization involved in the 911 attacks.

Al queda launched the 911 attacks.
Iran had harbored members of al queda.
Trumps actions fits the AUMF.

Whether the AUMF should be overhauled or repealed is a different issue.

I looked it up and there is no evidence the al-qaeda members you’re likely talking about were involved in the 9/11 attacks.

The Al-qeada members you are likely talking about were in Iran after 9/11. There were only a handful of them. And Iran’s relationship with the al-qaeda members was not a supportive sort of relationship. They were weary of them, spied on them, and at times kept them under house arrest.

Since these few people were not involved in the planning or execution of 9/11, and since Iran was not supporting them as it relates to 9/11, there is no logical connection to the 2021 AUMF.

If you have evidence to the contrary present it. This idea you have that I or anyone else should simply accept your opinion is idiotic and arrogant.

Prove it.

Again, as I stated earlier, Trump’s military strike was illegal.

This conversation would be easier if you just admitted you hate the law, hate the Constitution, and want Trump to be a dictator. We do not live in a monarchy. We do not live in a dictatorship. Trump is bound by the law. Trump is bound to the Constitution. Trump is a servant of the Constitution. And if Trump is not willing to serve this role he must resign or be removed from office.

AUMF said the president could use force against any nation he determines

You and other Authoritarian Trump supporters, who clearly intend to make Trump a dictator, think Trump should have the power to dictate to others what objective reality is. I don’t agree with this. I think Trump must act in accordance with what is actually happening in the real world, and cannot imagine an alternate universe to justify his illegal actions. If Iran had nothing to do with 9/11 it had nothing to do with 9/11, and Trump lying about it doesn’t change that fact.

This is all hypothetical, of course, because Trump did not link Iran to 9/11 as part of his justification for attacking Iran. This is something you’re inventing after the fact because you realize his actions actually were illegal.

 

[Athanasius68]

I looked it up and there is no evidence the al-qaeda members you’re likely talking about were involved in the 9/11 attacks.

The Al-qeada members you are likely talking about were in Iran after 9/11. There were only a handful of them. And Iran’s relationship with the al-qaeda members was not a supportive sort of relationship. They were weary of them, spied on them, and at times kept them under house arrest.

Since these few people were not involved in the planning or execution of 9/11, and since Iran was not supporting them as it relates to 9/11, there is no logical connection to the 2021 AUMF.

If you have evidence to the contrary present it. This idea you have that I or anyone else should simply accept your opinion is idiotic and arrogant.

Prove it.

Again, as I stated earlier, Trump’s military strike was illegal.

This conversation would be easier if you just admitted you hate the law, hate the Constitution, and want Trump to be a dictator. We do not live in a monarchy. We do not live in a dictatorship. Trump is bound by the law. Trump is bound to the Constitution. Trump is a servant of the Constitution. And if Trump is not willing to serve this role he must resign or be removed from office.



You and other Authoritarian Trump supporters, who clearly intend to make Trump a dictator, think Trump should have the power to dictate to others what objective reality is. I don’t agree with this. I think Trump must act in accordance with what is actually happening in the real world, and cannot imagine an alternate universe to justify his illegal actions. If Iran had nothing to do with 9/11 it had nothing to do with 9/11, and Trump lying about it doesn’t change that fact.

This is all hypothetical, of course, because Trump did not link Iran to 9/11 as part of his justification for attacking Iran. This is something you’re inventing after the fact because you realize his actions actually were illegal.

The AUMF simply speaks of membership in the organization. The Japanese Army was not immune from American attack because it was the Japanese Navy, and not Army, that attacked Pearl Harbor.

In any event, The thread is about politics- a hypothetical impeachment.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

The AUMF simply speaks of membership in the organization.

No, it doesn't.

Read it:

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL.—That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

--

Here’s the key part again, broken down bit by bit:

"...the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons

he determines

1. planned,

2. authorized,

3. committed,

4. or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,

5. or harbored such organizations or persons..."

The first four verbs are linked directly to the noun phrase "the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

That phrase serves as the object of all four preceding verbs.

The final clause "or harbored such organizations or persons" ties back not to terrorist organizations in general, but only to those involved in the 9/11 attacks.

The word "such" locks it down further as it refers only to organizations or persons described in the earlier clause, those who carried out 9/11.

Trump violated the constitution when he illegally ordered an attack on Iran.

The Japanese Army was not immune from American attack because it was the Japanese Navy, and not Army, that attacked Pearl Harbor.

This analogy is irrelevant because that's not how the 2001 AUMF was worded.

The AUMF was intentionally limited in scope.

And, anyways, it doesn't matter. Iran having put a few al-Qaeda under house arrests in the early 2000s is a really stupid excuse to attack them now.

In any event, The thread is about politics- a hypothetical impeachment.

I did not bring up the point about the 2001 AUMF. You brought it up. You brought it up because you recognize what Trump did was illegal. But the 2001 AUMF does not apply.

So, therefore, what Trump did was unconstitutional.

And if you were honest you'd admit it was unconstitutional and you'd admit you just don't care if Trump violates the Constitution.

 

[Athanasius68]

No, it doesn't.

Read it:

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL.—That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

--

Here’s the key part again, broken down bit by bit:

"...the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons

he determines

1. planned,

2. authorized,

3. committed,

4. or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,

5. or harbored such organizations or persons..."

The first four verbs are linked directly to the noun phrase "the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

That phrase serves as the object of all four preceding verbs.

The final clause "or harbored such organizations or persons" ties back not to terrorist organizations in general, but only to those involved in the 9/11 attacks.

The word "such" locks it down further as it refers only to organizations or persons described in the earlier clause, those who carried out 9/11.

Trump violated the constitution when he illegally ordered an attack on Iran.



This analogy is irrelevant because that's not how the 2001 AUMF was worded.

The AUMF was intentionally limited in scope.

And, anyways, it doesn't matter. Iran having put a few al-Qaeda under house arrests in the early 2000s is a really stupid excuse to attack them now.



I did not bring up the point about the 2001 AUMF. You brought it up. You brought it up because you recognize what Trump did was illegal. But the 2001 AUMF does not apply.

So, therefore, what Trump did was unconstitutional.

And if you were honest you'd admit it was unconstitutional and you'd admit you just don't care if Trump violates the Constitution.

Al queda organized the 911 attacks.
Under the law, that organization can be attacked.

Iran harbored al queda.
Under the law, that means Iran can be attacked.

 

[CaughtInThe]

 

[CaughtInThe]

 

[bythoughts]

The Democrats really, really work HARD to keep losing this badly.

Trump sent someone by accident to lifetime imprisonment in a Third World concentration camp? No impeachment.

... appoints the least qualified candidate in history (including Caligula's horse incitatus) to head the NIH. Destroyed American research. Left the country open to being half killed by avian flu. No impeachment.

... deports Purple Heart veterans, military spouses, German tourists, all for no reason. Makes it impossible for any professional organization to contemplate holding a global conference in the U.S. No impeachment.

... ignores Congress when they budget billions of dollars for research, aid, and other priorities. Funds anything he wants without Congress. Thereby making Congress a group of reenactors comparable to those guys who play Confederate soldier on the weekends. No impeachment.

... blasts the bejeeezus out of the Iranian nuclear program, while somehow - so far - avoiding getting into a ruinous land war? Oh, well that's it, the Democrats gotta line up and beat the impeachment drum! Because this is the first time in the long time that they can be confident they will lose. And it's important that they lose, because they're being funded by the same brown bags full of $50 cash cards from Bitcoin billionaires that are being handed over to the Republicans with instructions to win.

... and after this, no matter what Trump does, no matter WHO he sends to El Salvador, they can comfortably whine well look, we already tried to impeach him before! Makes them feel comfortable and happy.