2020.0114.0404...

Trump’s collapsing rationalization for the Soleimani strike as ‘imminent’
Philip Bump - Jan. 13, 2020

The administration has apparently embraced the broad sense of “could do damage” for legal purposes, but Trump demands the narrower “something about to happen” sense for his political aims. The resulting position is an awkward one for the White House, having to claim that the Soleimani killing prevented imminent attacks even in the absence of public evidence supporting that idea — and at the same time arguing that Soleimani posed an ongoing threat deserving of intervention.

Trump tried to navigate both those points in a tweet Monday morning, waving away the idea that an imminent attack was a necessary predicate for the strike — even while claiming that an attack was imminent.

Evidence to that end has been lacking and may not exist. That brings additional complexity, since at least one prominent political actor has, in the past, argued that a president offering untrue information before taking military action was grounds for impeachment.

That was Trump himself, speaking about George W. Bush and the Iraq War in 2008.

Read entire article HERE.

Here's another ditty from Finland...

Oh people good, people dear!
Please listen, please hear.

Save your nation
from that orange abomination.

It is utmost vital,
that he loses the president's title.

This is the hour
to use your power,

so go and vote him out,
that's what this is all about.

(Just had to bark it out... sorry)