Analyst's note: Barack Hussein Obama aids and abets our enemy with material assistance. Consider the facts and the consequences along with what should follow.
"This is a crime punishable by imprisonment of 10 years to life, which covers all Americans--including the President."
Shepard Smith asked Judge Andrew Napolitano whether or not the Taliban prisoner exchange was legal under the NDAA H.R. 1960 Statute. The judge explained that the swap was illegal because taxpayer dollars were spent to remove these prisoners from Guantanamo Bay without giving Congress 30 days notice. However, Napolitano goes a step further by pointing out that Obama has provided material assistance (human assets) to the Taliban, which has been identified by Congress to be a non-state terrorist organization. This is a crime punishable by imprisonment of 10 years to life, which covers all Americans--including the President.
But this is not all. See this video.
******
There is little question that the deal approved by Barack Obama to trade five dangerous terrorists for an Army sergeant accused of desertion struck many Americans as ill-advised and potentially dangerous.
The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, however, took the criticism to a higher level in a report released Thursday. By failing to give Congress 30 days’ notice before releasing the prisoners, the agency found the Defense Department in clear violation of a federal law.
According to the report, “because DOD used appropriated funds to carry out the transfer when no money was available for that purpose, DOD violated the Antideficiency Act.”
The GAO cited one specific section of the law, signed by Obama himself, it determined was violated in the widely criticized prisoners swap.
“None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this Act may be used to transfer any individual detained at United States Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to the custody or control of the individual’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity except in accordance with section 1035 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.”
According to the report, the GAO attempted to determine when the Defense Department provided the requisite notification enumerated in section 1035; and in its response, the department indicated that it alerted Congress on the same day as Bergdahl’s release.
“In our view, DOD has dismissed the significance of the express language enacted in section 8111,” the report concluded.
Calling the law’s mandate “clear and unambiguous,” the GAO ultimately sided with a number of critics who, from the beginning, asserted that the deal was inherently illegal.
