jasdooit

Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.) had a disagreement with Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and other intelligence officials regarding the interpretation of “imminent” when he questioned if Iran posed an “imminent threat” to the United States.

Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe were questioned about their agreement with statements from the Senate hearing on Wednesday, and whether the president is the sole individual who can decide if there is an “imminent threat.”

“Senator, the president is the only one who decides what constitutes an immediate threat,” Gabbard replied.

Legal professionals and national security specialists swiftly dismissed the response, stating it was entirely false.

Similar to the Senators on Wednesday, Gomez asked for details regarding the rationale for targeting Iran. Gabbard’s threat evaluation stated that Iran did not pose an immediate danger. Trump has informed the media that Iran was “weeks” away from launching a nuclear weapon against the United States.

“Did they have weeks or not?” Gomez inquired. The American public needs to understand whether this posed an immediate danger or not. There’s no need for evasion. Were they facing an imminent threat? Yesterday, you stated that the president is the sole person who can decide what constitutes an imminent threat. Do you still hold that view?

Gomez questioned Gabbard once more about her stance on that statement, and she confirmed she did. He then asked Ratcliffe if he did as well. Both avoided answering.

“It’s a significant issue that demands all the available information,” Gabbard stated.

“As the commander in chief, he has the authority to decide on that threat. The intelligence community, the intelligence—” Ratcliffe stated before being interrupted.

I take back my time,” Gomez yelled above them. “Take back my time. Take back my time. Why do you even have a job? Why do you even counsel him? You’re claiming the president of the U.S. can declare China as an immediate threat. Regardless of the intelligence. He can act on his own. That’s essentially what you’re implying.

Related Articles:

・“she deceived us”: former gabbard employees share their accounts of the ‘unhinged’ meeting with the syrian leader

・A new whistleblower claims ‘serious harm to national security’ caused by Tulsi Gabbard

・“Refuse to invite”: Trump deliberately left out his intelligence chief from Venezuela strategies