Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Washington (CNN) *The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said a top White House national security official called her Monday night and apologized for not providing Congress with 30 days notice, as is required by law, before transferring five Guantanamo detainees in the recent swap for prisoner of war Bowe Bergdahl.
Its very disappointing that there was not a level of trust to justify alerting us to that, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, told reporters. I had a call from the White House last night, from (Deputy National Security Adviser) Tony Blinken, apologizing for it.
Feinstein said it was her impression from the call that the lack of a notification was an oversight on the part of the White House, although she said Blinken may not have used that exact word.
Obama defends prisoner exchange for Bergdahl
Was Bergdahl swap legal? Depends on who you ask
Feinstein said the top Democrats and Republicans on the national security committees on Capitol Hill had discussed the possibility of a prisoner swap in 2011 when it was part of a bigger proposal, but there were very strong views and they were virtually unanimous against the trade.
Asked if that Congressional opposition could have been the reason the White House didnt notify Congress, Feinstein said yes.
Yeah, it could be. But the White House is pretty unilateral about what they want to do when they want to do it. I think the notification to us is important and I think it would have been a much better thing to do because you do try to work together, she said.
House Speaker John Boehner released a statement that touched on the talks from 2011 and 2012 with Congress, saying serious questions were raised to the administration when the possibility of such an exchange was brought up.
"Unfortunately, the questions and concerns we had were never satisfactorily answered and they remain today," he said.
Boehner said the administration "provided assurances" in late 2011, early 2012 and again in 2013 that talks with Congress over an exchange would resume if the possibility became credible again.
"There was every expectation that the administration would re-engage with Congress, as it did before, and the only reason it did not is because the administration knew it faced serious and sober bipartisan concern and opposition," he argued.
The speaker added that he*supported calls*by House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon to hold hearings on the issue.
Hang on here.
I thought Obiewan was not going to do signing statements, like that rotten scallywag Bush did.
Most transparent administration in history!
Need a moving crew to help you with those goalposts?
I did not make the campaign promise, champ. My not believing him nor being surprised that he lied is beside the point.Need a moving crew to help you with those goalposts?
What "goalposts" have moved?
You claimed that you thought that Obama wasn't going to use signing statements. I asked why you thought that. You said you thought it because Obama said so. I asked why you believed him.
Presidents don't give back power once they've taken it.
I did not make the campaign promise, champ. My not believing him nor being surprised that he lied is beside the point.Need a moving crew to help you with those goalposts?
What "goalposts" have moved?
You claimed that you thought that Obama wasn't going to use signing statements. I asked why you thought that. You said you thought it because Obama said so. I asked why you believed him.
Presidents don't give back power once they've taken it.
But you are a democrat. Having no standards is expected.
Laws are meant for the little people. Obama's special, he doesn't have to follow the law, unless we make him and nobody seems to want to do that. Maybe we should elect some Congress critters with some balls. We don't seem to have any now.
Well, that's what happens when you allow signing statements.
Well, that's what happens when you allow signing statements.
A signing statement carries no legal authority. It is essentially the president trying to exercise a line item veto which has already been ruled unconstitutional by the supremes.
Well, that's what happens when you allow signing statements.
A signing statement carries no legal authority. It is essentially the president trying to exercise a line item veto which has already been ruled unconstitutional by the supremes.
And yet, when Congress allows one President to draft signing statements and follow them, they lose the ability to bitch when the next President does the same thing.
A signing statement carries no legal authority. It is essentially the president trying to exercise a line item veto which has already been ruled unconstitutional by the supremes.
And yet, when Congress allows one President to draft signing statements and follow them, they lose the ability to bitch when the next President does the same thing.
There are a couple of committees in the house considering articles of impeachment over this one, maybe they will grow some balls. We know he will never be convicted in the senate, but it would sure tarnish his legacy. Would make me happy if they just step up and do that much.
