The National  Memo Logo

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.

Monday, December 09, 2019 {{ new Date().getDay() }}

Seven months before a U.S. drone strike killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani, Donald Trump authorized lethal action against him. The revelation continues to erode the Trump administration’s claims that Soleimani posed an “imminent threat” to the United States.

NBC News reported on Monday that Trump authored a presidential directive in June that allowed for a strike on the Iranian general.

A senior administration official told NBC that it was “some time ago” that aides put killing Soleimani in front of Trump as part of the options available in response to Iranian hostility. According to NBC, Trump was urged by John Bolton to make the strike in June after Iran shot down a U.S. drone.

Trump reportedly told aides he would only make the strike after an American life was lost, which happened after a U.S. contractor was killed in Iraq by forces backed by the Iranians.

In the aftermath of Soleimani’s killing, Trump has claimed that the unusual action was undertaken because the general was involved in plots that were an “imminent threat” to U.S. assets and personnel.

But neither he nor senior members of his administration have presented evidence to justify the claim. Instead, they have publicly struggled to answer direct questions on the nature of the purported threat.

Trump claimed in an interview with Fox New’s Laura Ingraham on Thursday that Soleimani was targeting “four embassies,” but on Sunday, Defense Secretary Mike Esper said he hadn’t seen hard evidence of any such threat.

Members of the House and Senate who received classified briefings from the administration have publicly expressed disappointment with the presentations and indicated that the “imminent threat” has yet to be justified.

“No case was made for imminence,” Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA) told reporters after the briefing on Wednesday. The sentiment was echoed by Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), who said the information he was given at the briefing was “a far cry from what I consider to be an imminent threat.”

The skepticism about Trump’s decision making, as well as his decision not to inform congressional leaders ahead of the strike, led to a House vote in favor of restraining Trump’s war powers. The measure was supported by members of both parties.

Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.

Advertising

Start your day with National Memo Newsletter

Know first.

The opinions that matter. Delivered to your inbox every morning

Supreme Court of the United States

YouTube Screenshot

A new analysis is explaining the disturbing circumstances surrounding the overturning of Roe v. Wade and how the U.S. Supreme Court has morphed into an entity actively working toward authoritarianism.

In a new op-ed published by The Guardian, Jill Filipovic —author of the book, The H-Spot: The Feminist Pursuit of Happiness—offered an assessment of the message being sent with the Supreme Court's rollback of the 1973 landmark ruling.

Keep reading... Show less

Billionaires

YouTube Screenshot

After a year of reporting on the tax machinations of the ultrawealthy, ProPublica spotlights the top tax-avoidance techniques that provide massive benefits to billionaires.

Last June, drawing on the largest trove of confidential American tax data that’s ever been obtained, ProPublica launched a series of stories documenting the key ways the ultrawealthy avoid taxes, strategies that are largely unavailable to most taxpayers. To mark the first anniversary of the launch, we decided to assemble a quick summary of the techniques — all of which can generate tax savings on a massive scale — revealed in the series.

1. The Ultra Wealth Effect

Our first story unraveled how billionaires like Elon Musk, Warren Buffett and Jeff Bezos were able to amass some of the largest fortunes in history while paying remarkably little tax relative to their immense wealth. They did it in part by avoiding selling off their vast holdings of stock. The U.S. system taxes income. Selling stock generates income, so they avoid income as the system defines it. Meanwhile, billionaires can tap into their wealth by borrowing against it. And borrowing isn’t taxable. (Buffett said he followed the law and preferred that his wealth go to charity; the others didn’t comment beyond a “?” from Musk.)

Keep reading... Show less
{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}