13 Hour Filibuster: White House Finally Answers…Sort Of

After questions to the White House and John Brennan, along with a 13 hour filibuster that began yesterday just before noon, Attorney General Eric Holder finally answers the question Rand Paul continuously asked and the answer from the AG is “No.”


White House Press Secretary Jay Carney cited a letter from the Attorney General which confirms that the the President does not have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on U.S. soil.

Trending: Chinese Buying Land In US Communities All Over America

“Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on an American soil,” said Carney, reading Holder’s letter. “The answer is ‘No.’”

take our poll - story continues below

Has Big Tech Gone Too Far Banning the President?

  • Has Big Tech Gone Too Far Banning the President?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Carney did however add “if the United States were under attack, there were an imminent threat,” then the president would have the authority to order military action to repel said threat.

So while Carney cited the AG’s letter, which indicates a clear “No,” he then turned to the issue of “imminent threat.” For those that watched, this was one of the issues Senator Paul brought up. So it appears that the imminent/immediate issue has not quite been resolved.

Of course, one reason to answer this way is that they can always pick people up under the 2012 NDAA and hold them indefinitely simply because they claim they are terrorists or associated with terrorists. This is a simple fact in evidence.

Additionally, the leaked memo from the White House which read, “The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” now puts Eric Holder claiming something that apparently is opposed by the previous memo.

To provoke further thought on the matter, listen as Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) questions Holder on the use of drones to strike Americans on U.S. soil.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook and Twitter, and follow our friends at RepublicanLegion.com.

Become an insider!

Sign up for the free Freedom Outpost email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

You Might Like
Previous RINO Lindsey Graham Slams Rand Paul's Filibuster As "Ridiculous"
Next Federal Reserve Constitutional or Merely Legal?

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon to the right of the comment, and report it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation. If you don't see a commenting section below, please disable your adblocker.

Sorry. No data so far.