Michael

And when she said that,

it didn't strike me as being correct.

And,

for a couple reasons.

Okay, well one, let's walk the dog on this a little bit.

What if tomorrow, since Trump is the only person who is able to determine whether or not there's an imminent threat, regardless of the intelligence apparatus underneath him, he goes, Canada's an imminent threat.

Does that mean we get to strike Canada?

Because he is the only person in the intelligence apparatus, or is the final, he might be the final say as the commander in chief, but is his decision and his decisional load and his interpretation alone?

What if he says the same thing about Mexico?

So I was just having a conversation with somebody who's probably going to come on the show in a little bit.

So I'll leave the topic broadly.

Let's just say that this person came from the legal background, both in the military and outside of the military.

And we were discussing this.

It's a woman.

And she was saying she was like, no, what he what Tulsi said is not accurate.

And I think her and I both agree, my assessment is this, that is as close as Tulsi could get to supporting Joe Kent without actually saying that she agrees with him.

Because what this woman was saying, and this woman held a position where she would be in, I'll call it the kill chain, the approval chain for kinetic activities from a legal perspective, signing off on, yes, this meets the law, the rule of war, the law of war, Geneva Convention, ROEs, all of these things.

Authority specifically and by doctrine is delegated down to these intelligence apparatus to make these assessments as to whether or not there is or is not a threat.

Now, they might deal in probabilities, but it is literally the role of these organizations to come up with.

and brief the president on what is and what is not an imminent threat.