Not according to the Constitution.
The War Powers Act does not require Congress's approval to act. It requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of action.
From the State Department
In northeast Syria, the United States is working with our partners in the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS to support the enduring defeat of ISIS through stabilization efforts in liberated areas.
Ryan Fournier walked this back.
Ryan Fournier @RyanAFournier · 1h Yesterday I put up a tweet alleging that Mark Meadows wore a wire in the White House during the last stretch.
I’ve spoke with some of my sources again, and now it seems that information was wrong and incorrect. In fact, two of them retracted their statements on the matter…
Um, the US was fighting in Syria and Iraq when Trump was president.
A few other places too.
It's in response to attacks on US troops.
It's well within Presidential powers.
Seems like lockdown is over and there was no shooter.
I highly doubt this story. For a lot of reasons, but let's say the FBI did this above board, an assumption, I know, but if it wasn't above board, I think Meadows or his lawyer wouldn't go through with it.
There is a long standing DOJ Office of Legal Counsel memo going back to Watergate days that says a sitting president can't be indicted.
In 1973, the Department concluded that the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions. We have been asked to summarize and review the analysis provided in support of that conclusion, and to consider whether any subsequent developments in the law lead us today to reconsider and modify or disavow that determination.1 We believe that the conclusion reached by the Department in 1973 still represents the best interpretation of the Constitution.
https://www.justice.gov/d9/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf
That seems like a very big obstacle to this. Is this the sort of thing I judge would be needed to sign off on? That seems like a very big ask.
Could Meadows have made recordings on his own? I don't know if doing that with the President or in the White House is legal, but in general DC is one-party consent....meaning it's legal to record your own conversations with anyone because you yourself "consent' to the recording.
DC Wiretapping Law
The District of Columbia's wiretapping law is a "one-party consent" law. DC makes it a crime to record a phone call or conversation unless one party to the conversation consents.
Exactly.
How exactly would congress folks find out? Meadows would go around casually mentioning it?
and they would just do nothing with this information?
Was just looking at NY Civil Suits.
According to this https://kvnylaw.com/the-appeals-process-new-york-state-courts/
NY has three levels
NY Supreme Court NY Appellate Divison NY Court of Appeals
most rulings by a Supreme Court can be the subject of an appeal even though the case in the Supreme Court has not yet been finally resolved and is ongoing.
This is what happened with the summary judgement for fraud. Trump is appealing that and the consequences are on hold until that appeal is resolved. Meanwhile the trial on the other issues is ongoing.
So Trump is in NY Supreme Court now and there's two levels above that.
However, it's not clear to me that this case will go to the US Supreme Court https://kretzerfirm.com/how-do-cases-get-to-supreme-court/#:~:text=The%20Supreme%20Court%20has%20what,itself%20is%20a%20named%20party.
Normally a civil suit like this wouldn't go to the Supreme Court. The laws involved have been around for a long time so you figured they would have been challenged before.
However, that page does says
The Supreme Court has also been known to hear cases that are highly unusual, such as U.S. v. Nixon concerning the Watergate scandal or Bush v. Gore
8 Chan or 8 kun is probably not expensive to set up.
The cost would come once you get a lot page views and users. Scaling up your bandwidth/server costs would be the issue.
8kun came about because the owners of 8chan were feuding with the creator of 8 Chan.
When they bought it he became their employee.
But he wanted out.
Turned Down lawyer Robert Cheeley
Known to discuss Misty Hampton Mike Roman
3 unamed
Fulton County prosecutors have discussed potential plea deals with at least six additional co-defendants charged alongside Donald Trump for attempting to subvert the 2020 presidential election, multiple sources tell CNN.
The strategy by District Attorney Fani Willis’ office is clear: get as many co-defendants as possible to flip on the former president, leaving Trump and perhaps a few close allies on the hot seat.
You can pretend whatever you want.
But it's not hearsay. It's first hand direct testimony from a family member and one of my closest friends. Both of whom know what a plane looks in one case and sounds like in another. And I heard in September 2001
There are tons of people in the NY NJ areas who saw this not on TV, but live.
Where I-278 heads to the Brooklyn Battery tunnel hundreds of cars in bumper to bumper traffic had an elevated clear shot of both towels.
Where I lived you could walk to the rivers edge, like I did, and see the towers because I was already outside going to vote when I heard the news. So I didn't hear this from media. I learned it from from a crowd in the park.
You might have seen this before I added a comment
EDIT I see you didn't make the point about the bombs. JonathanE did.
I just saw the part about a bomber in my inbox and thought he was replying to me.
I posted a video to show what happens when a plane hits a skyscraper.
The "really happens" kind gives it away though doesn't it. That does beg the comparison.
And that's what Happens when that plane hits that skyscraper. ..a unique situation.
The Twin Towers were absolutely hit by planes.
I know two folks who were in downtown Manhattan at the time of impact.
Further, your comparison of a collision with a line backer or a 4yo is faulty. A more apt comparison would be a fly against a line backer or a fly against a 4yo. It’s really the same.
My whole point is to make an apples to apples comparison you need to know two things.
A. the force involved (Mass x speed of the moving thing) B. Are the structures comparable. (how the non moving thing responds)
It’s really the same.
It's not the same, because it your example, a fly, you are have an incredibly small force.
EDIT I see you didn't make the point about the bombs. JonathanE did.
You did not watch the video, you do not know what plane hit the building (b25 bomber) but tell me my comparison is faulty,
A B25 bomber does not equal there were bombs on that plane. Why would a B25 have live bombs on it flying over NYC?
Looking it up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945_Empire_State_Building_B-25_crash
there's no mention it did have bombs.
On Saturday, July 28, 1945, Lieutenant Colonel William Franklin Smith Jr., of Watertown, Massachusetts, was piloting a B-25 Mitchell bomber **on a routine personnel transport mission **from Bedford Army Air Field in Massachusetts to Newark Metropolitan Airport in New Jersey.
High explosive charges?
???
If I remember high school physics correctly, I don't think you can make a direct comparison without knowing the forces at work.
For example, you can't say these two people colliding this the same as these other two people colliding if in the first case it's my four year old bumps into me while walking and the second case is an NFL linebacker at top speed. I hope I'm only in one of those situations.
So you have to ask how big and how fast. It says video unavailable what kind of plane was it?
Also the Empire State Building is covered in stone. The facade is limestone and granite.
https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/08/2f/89/f6/empire-state-building.jpg
According to official fact sheets, the facade uses 200,000 cubic feet (5,700 m3) of limestone and granite, ten million bricks, and 730 short tons (650 long tons) of aluminum and stainless steel.
So the construction would play a part too.
I think you would need to do a lot math to an apples to apples comparison. I suck at math, so not me.
Plus Weissman presumably profits from the podcast he hosts with Wallace.
This is mentioned in Flynn's complaint.
Flynn is suing for libel. That's not easy to prove as part of US law. It's harder still if you're a public figure like Flynn.
There's an example from Flynn's family. His sister in law sued CNN but it was dismissed,haven't read why, just that it was.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.398562/gov.uscourts.flmd.398562.55.0.pdf
One reason defamation is hard to prove is opinions can't libel. You can say Mike Flynn is a crook or CNN are commies and that's protected speech.
If you say something specific like Mike Flynn was behind the Anthrax mailings (saw a good documentary on this) or the head of CNN joined the Communist Part on his 21st birthday, that's less likely to be considered opinions, but statements of fact.
Not a lawyer, but before discovery, you would first have to establish the statements are potentially libelous.
Weissman's statements read as they happened but they ignore the whole context...but I don't think that's enough. It's hard to win a libel suit. The 1st Amendment gives you some latitude over what is protected speech and what is not.
As the other thread pointed out, this feels like anyone can file a lawsuit type thing.
IT's ABSOLUTELY NOT in front of the Supreme Court by the evidence in the link you posted.
Complaint is here.
https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/flynn-msnbc-complaint.pdf
I'm not lawyer, but I think the complaint against Wallace is stronger than the one against Weissman.
This is the Wallace statement Flynn is suing over
“I mean think we are past worrying about [General Flynn’s] feelings, right? I mean [General Flynn] plotted the insurrection.”
A question I have is why is this coming out now....if they are talking about conversations that happened back in March.
I'm thinking that some lawyers have gotten discovery on Meadows grand jury testimony. Meadows is a defendant in Georgia along with other defendants.
So it's possible this info was included in the discovery materials in GA.
The tweet is quoting Mark Meadows lawyer.
So that's a source. And the motivation of that source is known - to protect his client.
One of the ABC reporters tweeted today. And it seems like two things are going on.
-
Meadows does not seem to have an immunity deal RIGHT NOW.
-
Meadows testified to the grand jury back in MARCH under court ordered immunity.
So this is before the Jack Smith Indictment of Trump. Mark Meadows is an "undicted co-conspirator" in that indictment.
So we don't know if Meadows has a deal to flip or is trying to negotiate a deal to flip RIGHT NOW.
This is what ABC said about the court ordered immunity
Under the immunity order from Smith's team, the information Meadows provided to the grand jury earlier this year can't be used against him in a federal prosecution.
That immunity came after a lawyer for Meadows requested that his client be immunized to testify before the grand jury, sources familiar with the matter said. A senior Justice Department official signed off on the request and an immunity order was then issued by U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg, the chief judge at the federal court in Washington, D.C., days before Meadows appeared before the grand jury in March, sources said.
Had Meadows not been granted immunity, prosecutors expected him to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, sources said.
I think you might mean something else.
Entrapment usually means the government was involved in original commission of the crime from the very beginning and the government persuaded the person to commit the crime when they normally wouldn't have.
Article on the background to this
https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2023/october/ukraine-law-ban-russian-ukrainian-orthodox-church-uoc.html