On Thursday, the eyes of the world were again on Syria. Earlier in the week, strongman Bashar Assad incensed decent human beings everywhere when he apparently used nerve gas on his own citizens. The New York Times reported that attack killed at least 86 people in the rebel-held province of Idlib.
Unlike a previous attack in 2013 — when Assad crossed the “red line” of chemical weapons usage and President Barack Obama did nothing — U.S. reaction this time was swift. On Thursday, a U.S. missile strike almost totally destroyed the Shayrat air base in Syria, where the nerve gas attack was launched, according to Fox News.
“It is in this vital national security interest of the U.S. to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons,” Trump said in a speech after the strike. “There can be no dispute that Syria used banned chemical weapons, violated its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention and ignored the urging of the U.N. Security Council.”
The strike was launched at Syria, but the real message may have been directed at North Korea.
Much like Syria, North Korea is plenty used to crossing red lines and getting away with it. During the Obama administration, missile test after missile test, nuclear test after nuclear test, the North Koreans would flout basic rules of international law and get away with it every time.
The administration has changed, however, and so has the message toward North Korea. The Trump administration has said that a military option is on the table when it comes to Kim Jong Un’s regime.
“We are working diplomatically, including with those that we might be able to enlist in this effort to get North Korea under control. But right now it appears to be going in a very reckless manner,” Secretary of State James Mattis said on a visit to the United Kingdom in March, according to Newsmax. “That’s got to be stopped.”
After Pyongyang’s most recent missile test, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson issued a terse statement that showed the Trump administration meant business.
“North Korea launched yet another intermediate range ballistic missile,” the statement read, according to CNN. “The United States has spoken enough about North Korea. We have no further comment.”
However, what happened in Syria Thursday could definitely be considered further comment. When Syria and North Korea crossed red lines under Barack Obama, they received nothing but a strong warning from the administration. READ MORE
HERE IS A LIST OF EVERY SINGLE TIME OBAMA COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE THAT DEMS & MEDIA COVERED UP
“Impeach!” It’s been more than eight years since Democrats uttered that word – long enough for anyone to wonder if it was still in their vocabulary, considering the deafening silence through the dozens of serious scandals during President Obama’s administration – but now that President Trump is the man in the White House, it’s back with a vengeance.
Democrats everywhere are wildly slinging the “I” word, hoping to nail Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors after the New York Times claimed a memo written by former FBI Director James Comey said the president urged him to end the federal investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn.
Some members of Congress are getting in on the action. They include Reps. Maxine Water, D-Calif., and Al Green, D-Texas. Even a Republican, Rep. Justin Amash, claimed Wednesday there are grounds to impeach President Trump. House Oversign Committee Chair Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, asked for the alleged Comey memo and other documents. Chaffetz tweeted that he is prepared to subpoena the information. And Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., invoked “Watergate.”
Now the Democratic Party is reportedly poll testing impeachment as a 2018 election issue. More than 1 million people signed a petition calling on Congress to impeach Trump.
Wasting no time Wednesday, the mainstream media sprang into action, enthusiastically echoing the left’s impeachment calls. MSNBC launched a Watergate ad implying Trump is America’s new Richard Nixon.
“Watergate. We know its name because there were reporters who never stopped asking questions,” says MSNBC host Chris Hayes, who hinted that Trump is next on the impeachment chopping block. “Now, who knows where the questions will take us. But I know this: I’m not going to stop asking them.”
Meanwhile, some overzealous members of the left plastered fliers around Washington, D.C., demanding all White House staffers resign Wednesday.
The posters read: “If you work for this White House you are complicit in hate-mongering, lies, corrupt taking of Americans’ tax money via self-dealing and emoluments, and quite possibly federal crimes and treason. Also, any wars will be on your soul. … Resign now.”
But constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley, who voted for President Obama, warned “impeachment” enthusiasts not to get ahead of themselves with President Trump. Why?
At this time, there’s no evidence Trump actually committed a crime.
“The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo,” Turley wrote in a May 17 opinion piece posted at the Hill. Turley explained:
For the first time, the Comey memo pushes the litany of controversies surrounding Trump into the scope of the United States criminal code.
However, if this is food for obstruction of justice, it is still an awfully thin soup. Some commentators seem to be alleging criminal conduct in office or calling for impeachment before Trump completed the words of his inaugural oath of office. Not surprising, within minutes of the New York Times report, the response was a chorus of breathless “gotcha” announcements. But this memo is neither the Pentagon Papers nor the Watergate tapes. Indeed, it raises as many questions for Comey as it does Trump in terms of the alleged underlying conduct.
A good place to start would be with the federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. 1503. The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo. There are dozens of different variations of obstruction charges ranging from threatening witnesses to influencing jurors. None would fit this case. That leaves the omnibus provision on attempts to interfere with the “due administration of justice.”
However, that still leaves the need to show that the effort was to influence “corruptly” when Trump could say that he did little but express concern for a longtime associate. The term “corruptly” is actually defined differently under the various obstruction provisions, but it often involves a showing that someone acted “with the intent to secure an unlawful benefit for oneself or another.” Encouraging leniency or advocating for an associate is improper but not necessarily seeking an unlawful benefit for him.
. Obama’s Iran nuke deal
Obama knew about Hillary’s private email server
Obama IRS targets conservatives
Obama’s DOJ spies on AP reporters
Obamacare & Obama’s false promises
Illegal-alien amnesty by executive order
Operation Fast & Furious
5 Taliban leaders for Bergdahl
‘Recess ‘ appointments – when Senate was in session
Appointment of ‘czars’ without Senate approval
Suing Arizona for enforcing federal law
Refusal to defend Defense of Marriage Act
Illegally conducting war against Libya
NSA: Spying on Americans
Muslim Brotherhood ties
Solyndra and the lost $535 million
Cap & Trade: When in doubt, bypass Congress
Refusal to prosecute New Black Panthers
Obama’s U.S. citizen ‘hit list’