7

This morning President Trump announced that US forces had successfully killed ISIS founder Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. While Democrats are of course glad that he is gone, they have taken issue with the fact that Trump told some other nations such as Russia and some Republicans beforehand, but told no Democrats, especially Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House. Trump's explanation was that he feared the information would get leaked and that the soldiers could die because of it, so he only told people who he trusted.

So why is it a big deal that Trump didn't tell any Democrats? Why would they need to know? What would they need to do that they could only do if they knew?

divibisan
  • 25,926
  • 6
  • 110
  • 135
Levi C. Olson
  • 531
  • 3
  • 11
  • 17
    One possible point of concern, if what you are saying is correct, would be that the people Trump trusted included the leadership of a somewhat hostile foreign government, but none of his political opponents and even not everyone in his own party. – Obie 2.0 Oct 27 '19 at 19:07
  • 3
    @Obie2.0 That's true, although one could also argue that it says more about Democrats than it does him, although I'm not necessarily arguing that. – Levi C. Olson Oct 27 '19 at 19:10
  • 1
    As this question is formulated it is basically asking the answers to decide if Trump or the Democrats are right about making this an issue. As such, I'm voting to close as primarily opinion based. If you rephrase this question from some clear perspective, e.g. why do the Democrats say they should have been informed, it could admit non-opinionated answers. (Likewise you could ask for Trump's perspective why he didn't inform them.) Both of those viewpoints however are detailed in the article you linked, so that reinforces my opinion that you're asking here "who is right?" – the gods from engineering Oct 27 '19 at 21:12
  • There are a few more quotes in https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/27/politics/key-democrats-unaware-of-abu-bakr-al-baghdadi-raid/index.html including one from Schiff (not quoted in the Fox News piece you linked, although Pelosi was quoted by Fox and you basically got her statement quoted again to you in tim's an answer). – the gods from engineering Oct 27 '19 at 21:25
  • It seems more of a concern that Trump told ANYONE of a panned or ongoing operation, or indeed, that the military told Trump before it was over. – jamesqf Oct 28 '19 at 02:50
  • 7
    I'm not sure that editing this question to such a degree (it's now asking about a law governing this) is a good idea. It renders both answers below off-topic. Whoever made those edits (and it's not the OP) is better off asking that question separately. – the gods from engineering Oct 28 '19 at 07:40
  • I've edited the title from "assassination" to "raid" (and also made a minor grammatical correction). Since the (uncontested) story insofar is that al-Baghdadi blew himself up, "assassination" seems unwarranted. – the gods from engineering Oct 29 '19 at 12:08
  • @DJSpicyDeluxe I rolled back your edit because changing it to ask about a “legal justification” invalidated previously written answers and that change had already been rolled back by a mod. If you really want to ask about that, I suggest asking a new question, or making a post on meta to discuss – divibisan Oct 29 '19 at 14:48

5 Answers5

11

It's not a big deal because there are only soft, legal requirements that, in this instance are easily justifiably skirted, to tell Congress before such a raid.

Federal law states that the President need only inform Congress, through statement (oral or written), of the reasons in a timely manner after the act. There is no criteria for accessing Presidential reasons for non-disclosure as valid or not. Emphasis mine.

(c) Timing of reports; access to finding

(1) The President shall ensure that any finding approved pursuant to subsection (a) shall be reported in writing to the congressional intelligence committees as soon as possible after such approval and before the initiation of the covert action authorized by the finding, except as otherwise provided in paragraph (2) and paragraph (3).

(2) If the President determines that it is essential to limit access to the finding to meet extraordinary circumstances affecting vital interests of the United States, the finding may be reported to the chairmen and ranking minority members of the congressional intelligence committees, the Speaker and minority leader of the House of Representatives, the majority and minority leaders of the Senate, and such other member or members of the congressional leadership as may be included by the President.

(3) Whenever a finding is not reported pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2) of this section, the President shall fully inform the congressional intelligence committees in a timely fashion and shall provide a statement of the reasons for not giving prior notice.

President Donald Trump did have this to say about Adam Schiff.

"Adam Schiff is the biggest leaker in Washington. You know that. I know that. We all know that. I've watched Adam Schiff leak. He's a corrupt politician. He's a leaker like nobody has ever seen before.

... And

“We notified some," the president said. "Others are being notified now as I speak. We were going to notify them last night, but we decided not to do that because Washington leaks like I've never seen before. There's nothing — there's no country in the world that leaks like we do, and Washington is a leaking machine."

In 2017 a leak scuttled a great lead on Bagdhadi according to Gen. Tony Thomas. So there is precedent for Trump's concern.

Community
  • 1
  • 1
    The question was reverted to its original form (which didn't mention the legal aspect). Your answer still works, though. I just added a sentence to the beginning to explain why the legal issue is still relevant. Hopefully I didn't misrepresent your views by saying that it's not a big deal. – divibisan Oct 28 '19 at 21:53
  • I would also be surprised if Congress could actually require that the President reveals any sensitive information, given the concept Executive Privilege. – JonathanReez Oct 28 '19 at 22:10
  • @Jonathanreez Executive privilege centers around presidential decisionmaking processes, not raw intelligence, which can sometimes be withheld for a time, as noted above, but not from the intelligence committees because of their rightful oversight role –  Oct 28 '19 at 22:14
  • Might be true if Trump was being tight-lipped to keep stuff from leaking, but he informed several Congressional members of the GOP, and have a heads up to foreign powers with adversarial interests, and then, of course, was blurting out details that did not need to be shared after the fact. General Thomas' claim, parroted and hyped by Fox News was complete BS. The "leak" information was obtained by public Pentagon press statements three weeks before the Times article that Trump and Thomas blamed. – PoloHoleSet Oct 28 '19 at 23:12
  • 2
    @poloholeset that's only true if Schiff is at least honorable as the Russians, whom we needed to talk with to avoid escalation in a war zone. The President with cause deemed he wasn't. –  Oct 29 '19 at 10:40
  • @poloholeset I tend to agree with you about the Gen and the timeline, but he didn't say the NYTs so maybe it was Fox's fault and he meant something else? Some one should ask a clarifying question. –  Oct 29 '19 at 10:43
  • I disagree with your interpretation of the law, as well. It states that the intelligence committees must be informed after the determination is made, and before the action is taken. In the examples that exempt that full notification, it states that the so-called "Gang of Eight" can be notified, instead. Neither was done. Part 3 would imply that there was a legitimate reason for not informing them. The fact that he was able to inform Graham and Burr ahead of time shows that there was no reason why Section 2 could not have been done. It's not an "you can ignore it if you wish" passage. – PoloHoleSet Oct 29 '19 at 14:31
  • What the General described pretty much fit with the Times article, but exempted the fact that the Pentagon spilled the beans weeks earlier. Pretty much everyone knew who he was trying to blame. – PoloHoleSet Oct 29 '19 at 14:32
  • 2
    @PoloHoleSet you mention that "he ... [gave] a heads up to foreign powers with adversarial interests," but that mischaracterizes what actually happened. The US informed the Turkish military that a mission would be carried out in the area to avoid conflict in that area during the Turkish build-up in the region, but gave nothing about the target. Iraq and Syrian Kurds knew that a mission would eventually happen, since they participated in the intelligence gathering, but nothing about the raid itself as it was planned. – gormadoc Oct 31 '19 at 22:04
  • The mission as a whole has been going on for years, with his location being pin-pointed for months. Two missions had already been called off. I bet the intelligence community received findings long ago, since those are just to say why something needs to happen. So long as there is "no significant change" the finding is still valid. The significant changes suggested for consideration mostly amount to more funding, risk, and authority. It's all in 3093(d). Since the raid itself is probably nearly identical to the earlier planned raids I don't think legal worrying is even necessary. – gormadoc Oct 31 '19 at 22:13
  • @gormadoc - You know the precise contents of his discussions with Turkey and Russia, how, exactly? This guy is (in)famous for blurting out things he isn't supposed to. And, no, the intelligence community was not informed of the finding, otherwise the pushback would be "we informed you as required by law on X date", and not "I think you're leaky and I'm miffed at you for investigating me." – PoloHoleSet Nov 01 '19 at 15:03
  • @gormadoc - Any mischaracterization is on your part, as I made no claim or implication that they were briefed on operational details. A "heads up" is exactly what they were given. – PoloHoleSet Nov 01 '19 at 15:08
  • @PoloHoleSet from what I understand, you actually have to have evidence that something happened in order to demand somebody prove it didn't. Trump was not involved in the planning; the military was. The military has given its account: they told Turkey only about the mission being in the area and the time because they believed telling them who would compromise the mission. Russia has expressed surprise, apparently not even knowing that the US had pinpointed his location for so long. There was just a day or so (Fri) from Trump knowing about this action to the action being carried out (Sat). – gormadoc Nov 01 '19 at 15:11
  • @PoloHoleSet you mischaracterize it by implying that he was leaking it to foreign powers just because he likes to talk, when in reality the military informed Turkey in order to avoid a skirmish. You identify the wrong agent informing the foreign power and imply a reason that only works with the wrong agent and isn't true in any case. – gormadoc Nov 01 '19 at 15:13
  • @gormadoc - Where did I ever claim he was leaking it? Where did I ever make that claim? The only reference to him blurting out operational details was in his press conference after the event. You are, again, inventing things I never claimed, and never implied. I only mention his affinity for saying things he isn't supposed to because you make an unfounded claim about knowing exactly what information was given or not. Did they say they only gave correct and modest details? Do they have a track record about honesty when describing actions taken or conversations? – PoloHoleSet Nov 01 '19 at 15:18
  • @PoloHoleSet "Might be true if Trump was being tight-lipped to keep stuff from leaking, but he informed several Congressional members of the GOP, and [gave] a heads up to foreign powers with adversarial interests" implies that he was leaking it. – gormadoc Nov 01 '19 at 15:21
  • @gormadoc - He gave the "go" order on Friday, but the determination that the intel was solid enough to go ahead and begin preparations for the raid happened months before. The law requires that Intelligence Committees be briefed as soon as that FINDING is made. I'm not claiming they had to be in on the plan details, and they aren't complaining that they weren't. But they do have to be kept abreast of these intelligence findings and determinations and do have to be kept in the loop of developments. it's in the law. – PoloHoleSet Nov 01 '19 at 15:23
  • @gormadoc - No, the fact that he told his favored members of the Senate shows that there was no inability to inform members of Congress, so there was no legitimate reason to not follow the law. And, yes, notifying Lindsey Graham and not following the proper channels could very well be considered a leak. "Leak" only comes up because that was Trump's justification for breaking the law, but he was fine with sharing that same information with others, so you can't claim he was keeping it all a tight secret. It's refuting his transparent claims for reasons not to follow the law. – PoloHoleSet Nov 01 '19 at 15:26
  • @gormadoc - If you want to invent implications that don't exist, that's up to you, but they don't exist, except in your own mind. Trumps own actions refute his claims about why he did not follow the law. Plain and simple. – PoloHoleSet Nov 01 '19 at 15:27
  • @PoloHoleSet Pelosi hasn't complained that they didn't receive a finding, she's complaining that they weren't notified about the raid itself before it took place. That's the difference, and that's why it doesn't really matter. Nothing in law compels anybody to tell her about the raid itself before it's done, when a report is required. The only compulsion is to submit a finding, which was probably done months ago, before the first mission. – gormadoc Nov 01 '19 at 15:28
  • @gormadoc - No, they're complaining that they were kept in the dark that a raid was being planned, not the execution. It caught them all completely by surprise. Read the federal statute regarding this. The covert action can only be ordered when there is a "finding" to justify it. They should have known that a covert action was being prepped. They didn't. – PoloHoleSet Nov 01 '19 at 15:30
  • @gormadoc The law doesn't prevent him from telling people he doesn't believe will leak the information from doing so. If he believes, or even just states he believes, that somebody who would normally need to be informed will leak, he doesn't have to tell them and can just fall back on giving a more comprehensive report afterwards, as (3) allows. – gormadoc Nov 01 '19 at 15:32
  • 1
    @PoloHoleSet They are not complaining that they didn't know a raid was being planned, they were complaining that they weren't notified of "this raid" (their own specification) beforehand. The law does not require them to be informed of the raid itself or the timing so long as a finding had already been submitted and nothing has substantially changed. The raid was carried out when it was because things were going to substantially change, not that I believe they did it to avoid submitting a new finding. They did not complain that they did not receive a finding of the action. – gormadoc Nov 01 '19 at 15:36
  • @gormadoc - You're right, the law does not prevent him from telling others, but it *requires* him to keep the specified people informed of both the finding that sets the covert action into motion, and any developments. "... are notified of any significant change in a previously approved covert action, or any significant undertaking pursuant to a previously approved finding" If he's going to claim that he couldn't follow the law because of the need for absolute secrecy, then him sharing with people he likes better directly refutes his reason for not following the law. – PoloHoleSet Nov 01 '19 at 16:00
  • 1
    @gormadoc Where is it in the law involved that says "if he believes, or even just states he believes, that somebody who would normally need to be informed will leak, he doesn't have to tell them"? The law I saw states that in "extraordinary circumstances... the finding may be reported to the chairmen and ranking minority members of the congressional intelligence committees, the SPEAKER and minority leader of the House of Representatives, the majority and minority leaders of the Senate, and such other member or members of the congressional leadership as may be included by the President." – PurpleThinker Nov 05 '19 at 09:39
4

Pelosi said this about the raid:

Americans salute the heroism, dedication and skill of our military and our intelligence professionals and acknowledge the work of our partners in the region. [...]

The House must be briefed on this raid, which the Russians but not top Congressional Leadership were notified of in advance, and on the Administration’s overall strategy in the region. Our military and allies deserve strong, smart and strategic leadership from Washington.”

Specifically, this is one request and one complaint:

  • Request: The House should be briefed now that the raid has taken place
  • Complaint: Russia was notified of the raid beforehand, but not the House

This doesn't necessarily mean that Pelosi or the House needed to be informed before the raid, if it was determined that the information is on a need to know basis.

Informing an adversary of the US but not a branch of the US government on the other hand might upset Democrats, especially given the history between Trump and Russia, as well as Trumps insinuation that the House - not Russia - would leak information which may damage national security.

Community
  • 1
tim
  • 37,031
  • 15
  • 102
  • 133
  • 16
    The U.S. had to fly over Russian controlled airspace. Of course they were notified beforehand. –  Oct 27 '19 at 20:03
  • 2
    FWIW, Trump said he didn't notify Congress (until after the raid was over) because he was afraid of leaks. See https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/47153/did-obama-notify-congress-the-intelligence-committees-in-particular-that-the-b – the gods from engineering Oct 27 '19 at 20:17
  • 1
    Note that the question was now edited such an extent as to make your answer off-topic. It's now asking about a law governing this issue. – the gods from engineering Oct 28 '19 at 07:38
  • 2
    @Fizz I'm not a fan of completely rewriting questions like this (now it seems more appropriate for law.SE). The question also seems more limited than before (Pelosi could take issue with how this was handled even if there is no law, so this now seems like a leading question). I would have gone with a change like "Why did the Democrats/Pelosi take issue with [...]", which seems on-topic and more in line with OPs intent. If this edit does stay, I'll probably delete my answer in time. – tim Oct 28 '19 at 07:44
  • 2
    @tim: I agree and I've raise the issue on https://politics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4127/editing-a-question-to-such-an-extent-as-to-make-all-existing-answers-off-topic – the gods from engineering Oct 28 '19 at 07:56
  • 4
    @KDog As some national security types have pointed out, the raid required "deconfliction," not necessarily "notification." That is, "you're going to be seeing some aircraft on this vector; they're ours, don't shoot at them" is necessary. – jeffronicus Oct 28 '19 at 15:00
  • The answer, K Dog’s comment and jeffronicus’ reply to the comment raise the question how substantially Russia was or was not informed. – Jan Oct 29 '19 at 11:09
  • @Jan Yeah, that would be a very interesting question, though maybe one that's not answerable with available information. Still, I hope someone asks it (hint, hint!) – divibisan Oct 29 '19 at 15:36
2

Without attempting to apportion blame, it does show that trust between the Executive and Congressional leaders of the opposing party has been lost to an extraordinary degree.

William Jockusch
  • 3,959
  • 1
  • 12
  • 22
-4

Congress is a co-equal branch of government, with oversight responsibility over the Executive Branch, and the branch with sole power to declare war.

The President is further required, by law, to keep Congress informed of such actions.

To the extent consistent with due regard for the protection from unauthorized disclosure of classified information relating to sensitive intelligence sources and methods or other exceptionally sensitive matters, the Director of National Intelligence and the heads of all departments, agencies, and entities of the United States Government involved in a covert action—

(1) shall keep the congressional intelligence committees fully and currently informed of all covert actions which are the responsibility of, are engaged in by, or are carried out for or on behalf of, any department, agency, or entity of the United States Government, including significant failures; and

(2) shall furnish to the congressional intelligence committees any information or material concerning covert actions which is in the possession, custody, or control of any department, agency, or entity of the United States Government and which is requested by either of the congressional intelligence committees in order to carry out its authorized responsibilities.

(c) Timing of reports; access to finding (1) The President shall ensure that any finding approved pursuant to subsection (a) of this section shall be reported to the congressional intelligence committees as soon as possible after such approval and before the initiation of the covert action authorized by the finding, except as otherwise provided in paragraph (2) and paragraph (3).

(2) If the President determines that it is essential to limit access to the finding to meet extraordinary circumstances affecting vital interests of the United States, the finding may be reported to the chairmen and ranking minority members of the congressional intelligence committees, the Speaker and minority leader of the House of Representatives, the majority and minority leaders of the Senate, and such other member or members of the congressional leadership as may be included by the President.

(3) Whenever a finding is not reported pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2) of this section,1 the President shall fully inform the congressional intelligence committees in a timely fashion and shall provide a statement of the reasons for not giving prior notice.

(4) In a case under paragraph (1), (2), or (3), a copy of the finding, signed by the President, shall be provided to the chairman of each congressional intelligence committee. When access to a finding is limited to the Members of Congress specified in paragraph (2), a statement of the reasons for limiting such access shall also be provided.

50 U.S.C. 413b - Presidential approval and reporting of covert actions

You can see that normal notification is to inform the full intelligence committees in both houses, but when security is a concern, notification of select leadership can be done. This is the route Obama took with the raid that killed bin Laden.

Before the 2011 raid in Pakistan that killed al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, the Obama administration did give advance word to the top two Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate as well as the four leaders of the congressional intelligence committees.

Time.com: Speaker Pelosi Says White House Kept Congress in the Dark on al-Baghdadi Raid, But Informed Russia

It is notable that Trump did see fit to inform certain members he views a loyal allies, politically.

Trump did speak with Republican Senators Richard Burr and Lindsay Graham. Trump said Graham has “been very much involved in this subject” and that he spoke with Burr Sunday morning.

CNBC: Trump did not brief Pelosi and other top congressional leaders on Baghdadi raid

While it is expected that different branches and parties will come into disagreement and some degree of political conflict over issues and process, ultimately, it is a model of shared governing responsibility. Excluding only one party, a party that controls one of the houses of Congress, in an equal branch of government in this manner basically signals the raising of petty partisan concerns over the duties and responsibilities of governing. This is especially true when there is a legal requirement for notification.

PoloHoleSet
  • 20,854
  • 3
  • 55
  • 89
  • 2
    -1. You read the other question and know that the Obama administration's lawyers reached the opinion that they were not required to notify Congress in advance, but Panetta did so anyway, apparently without the White House's permission. As such, this answer is highly disingenuous. And it's especially disingenuous, if not outright false, to say, "This is the route Obama took," when there's no evidence Obama authorized Panetta to take that route and there are sources saying that he did not. – reirab Oct 30 '19 at 20:19
  • @reirab - First of all, that was a special cadre of lawyers specifically tasked to examine and analyze the legal ramifications of all possible options.They made zero recommendations, and there is no indication that each and every item they deemed possible was automatically implemented. Their opinion that he could probably get away with not informing Congress in no way was a policy recommendation.That's a fundamentally phony framing of the situation. I commented on that link, and I rebutted it. The constant contact and updates, for months before, with the ranking GOP member is absolutely proof. – PoloHoleSet Oct 30 '19 at 21:04
  • I never said anything about them making recommendations. As you said, they were tasked to analyze the legal options of the situation. And they reached the legal conclusion that informing the members of Congress in advance was not required, which is quite contrary to the implications of your present answer. – reirab Oct 30 '19 at 21:18
  • So how do you make the leap from them saying that they could justify not telling beforehand until afterwards to claiming that Obama did not and would not have informed Congress as the law states he must? The person who is regularly tasked with briefing Congress briefed Congress, but only the smaller select group that is authorized when security is an issue. That's not an indication of a chatty Kathy blabbing when they aren't supposed to. That's an indication of someone following legal and authorized policy. – PoloHoleSet Oct 30 '19 at 21:26
  • 1
    I'm not the one writing the answer. How do you make the leap from "His lawyers specifically tasked to determine whether the notification was required determined that it was not" to "he authorized telling Congress because he was legally required to?" Your answer is stating that it is a legal requirement and Obama acted in accordance with that requirement when his administration determined that it was not a legal requirement. Leaving that part out is misleading at best. – reirab Oct 30 '19 at 21:34
  • 2
    You also seem to be massively overstating what Rogers said. From the the CRS document, "The chairmen of the House and Senate intelligence committees have stated that they were briefed on OBL’s whereabouts during the past few months including, according to Representative Mike Rogers, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, some details regarding the Abbottabad compound." Saying they were briefed on "OBL's whereabouts" "including some details regarding the Abbottabad compound" is not the same as saying they were briefed on the details of the planned operation to kill him. – reirab Oct 30 '19 at 21:41
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. – PoloHoleSet Oct 30 '19 at 22:52
-7

So why is it a big deal that Trump didn't tell any Democrats?

It isn't, but some try to make it a big deal.

A large part of the Democratic Party is so anti-Trump nowadays that when the Trump administration reaches any achievement, they have to find something to complain about. They just can't admit to any success.

Compare the current reactions to how Bush reacted when Obama called him to inform Bush of Osama Bin Laden's death.

Bush said Obama described in detail the secret mission to raid bin Laden's Pakistani compound and the decision he made to put the plan into motion. He told Obama, "Good call."

Just saying those words - "Good call" - and leaving it at that, seems too hard nowadays.

Sjoerd
  • 5,370
  • 1
  • 21
  • 28
  • 5
    Is there any evidence Trump has called former presidents to describe this mission to them and get their reaction? Otherwise this seems a false analogy. – Jontia Oct 27 '19 at 21:54
  • 3
    GW Bush and the Obama are friends. And two respected US Presidents who have led the country in war can likely understand eachother in ways few others could.

    https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/160924184552-obamas-and-bushs-nmaahc-sept-24-exlarge-169.jpg

    Not comparable to characters such as Trump and Pelosi (one of whom is afterall trying to impeach the other).

     – Duke Bouvier Oct 27 '19 at 23:03
  • 1
    So Bush, a man who was no longer in office, was notified by Obama after the fact. You are comparing this to Trump not notifying senior congressional figures or congressional intelligence committees, people who Obama's administration did notify prior to the raid on Bin Laden's compound. – Tal Oct 28 '19 at 13:58
  • 1
    @Tal No, they didn't. They CIA did tell some members of Congress without the White House's approval, though. – reirab Oct 28 '19 at 21:29
  • @reirab - Not sure if you are aware of this, but the CIA is part of the administration, and there's no indication that Obama wasn't fine with Panetta informing the specific members of Congress they were legally required to. Obama's administration absolutely DID inform Congress. Mike Rogers in a press conference said that he had been kept in the loop dating back about four months prior to the raid of the Obama administrations plans and developments, regarding bin Laden. That doesn't sound like something done without permission. – PoloHoleSet Oct 30 '19 at 19:31
  • 1
    @PoloHoleSet Apparently their legal opinion was that they were not required to brief members of Congress before the fact, "Mr. Preston wrote a memo addressing when the administration had to alert congressional leaders under a statute governing covert actions. Given the circumstances, the lawyers decided that the administration would be legally justified in delaying notification until after the raid." It is also explicitly stated that Panetta told the members of Congress, "without White House permission." – reirab Oct 30 '19 at 19:57
  • @reirab - and Mike Rogers said that, for months preceding the raid, he was kept abreast of all developments, as I already said, and you chose to ignore. This shows it was standard policy to keep him informed, which absolutely refutes the idea that Panetta was free-wheeling it. Are you claiming that, without permission, Panetta met and disclosed information he was not supposed to, for months on end, without anyone intervening or saying anything? – PoloHoleSet Oct 30 '19 at 21:09
  • Obama could have instructed him to change their standard practice based on that, but the finding came out after the actual raid was already disclosed. That doesn't mean he was operating without authority or permission. It merely meant that the point was mute before they could consider this rather radical departure. That sentence does not jibe with all the other facts and actions. He may not have been given specific permission to do this, but he was never told not to deviate from the standard practices either. That finding by the lawyers, again, was not any kind of policy recommendation. – PoloHoleSet Oct 30 '19 at 21:09
  • 1
    +1 from me for the refreshing point. I see why your analogy might cause confusion, however, all in all, the premise of the former part of the answer seems highly plausible. – apgov Nov 03 '19 at 04:05