What A Day - Define “Imminent Threat From Soleimani”

Episode Date: January 13, 2020

In the days since the Trump administration killed Qasem Soleimani, there’s been little consensus on why the drone strike was necessary. We discuss Congress’ continuing response to this likely case of Presidential impulsivity.  Texas Governor Greg Abbott is now barring refugees from settling in Texas, empowered by a Trump executive order. We discuss whether the law will stand.  And in headlines: Serena Williams is a mom with a title, vultures are antifa, and what will come of the Sandringham Showdown.

It's Monday, January 13th. I'm Akilah Hughes. I'm Gideon Resnick, and this is What A Day, celebrating our recent Oscar nom in the category of Best Costume Design for a Daily News Podcast. It's a real category, and it is really exciting. I'm over the day. On today's show, developments in Iran and Texas bans refugees. And then some headlines. In the days since the Trump administration killed Qasem Soleimani, there has been little clarity about why or if the drone strike was necessary.

Members of Congress are seeking answers, with some hoping to also restrict the president's ability to escalate any future conflict. At issue, was there an imminent threat to the U.S. from Iran and specifically from Soleimani? So let's start with what Trump said on Friday to Fox News. I can reveal that I believe it would have been four embassies. And I think that probably Baghdad already started. They were really amazed that we came in with that kind of a force. We came in with very powerful force and drove them out.

You know, that ended almost immediately. But Baghdad certainly would have been the lead. But I think it would have been for embassy, could have been military bases, could have been a lot of other things, too. But it was imminent. And then all of a sudden he was gone. The way he said that last line. Why did he say gone like that? I don't know. But on Sunday, his own administration officials couldn't exactly back up that assertion.

Can you clarify, though, was the specific threat that the president shared with Fox News about four U.S. embassies being under threat also shared with Congress? Why was there a difference? What the president said was he believed that it probably and could have been attacks against additional embassies. I shared that view. I know other members of the national security team shared that view. That's why I deployed thousands of American paratroopers to the Middle East to reinforce our embassy in Baghdad and other sites throughout the region. Probably and could have been. That is, that sounds more like an assessment than a specific tangible threat with a decisive piece of intelligence. Well, the president didn't say it was a tangible. He didn't cite a specific piece of evidence.

What he said is he probably, he believed. Are you saying there wasn't one? I didn't see one with regard to four embassies. What I'm saying is I share the president's view that probably my expectation was they were going to go after our embassies. The embassies are the most prominent display of American presence in a country. Okay, so that was Defense Secretary Mark Esper on Face the Nation. As he said in that interview, he's not ruling out that something could have maybe happened, but he didn't really sound so confident that there was a plan fully in the works. I mean, it sounded quite a bit different than what Trump himself was saying. This was also something that some members of Congress said they didn't hear in a briefing

with administration officials last week. Is it asking too much that they figure this out before a drone strike? No. Yeah, I don't think so. So what's the next thing that we're expecting from Congress? I mean, there's still a lot of outstanding questions that need answers. Well, after the House voted on their war powers resolution last week, the Senate might take up their own version soon. The goal of that basically is congressional authorization if Trump is going to do anything further or if there's necessity to do anything further in Iran. But what many members are saying, in addition to just figuring out how to restrain Trump on this, is that this has brought up a moment to kind of re-recognize

Congress's role in authorization and oversight for military force in general, typically what a functioning and well-orchestrated government would be doing, that for too long moments like this spring up because members don't take that role in this process seriously enough. Why hasn't any party made a full-throated effort to get a new authorization for military force? Well, Margaret, as you know, I have been working on this since I came to the Senate, and I have the same concern. When I came to the Senate in 2013, I criticized President Obama for taking us into military action in Libya without congressional authorization, for going on ISIS in Iraq in Libya without congressional authorization, for going on ISIS

in Iraq and Syria without congressional authorization. I will say this, when I started on this crusade six, seven years ago, very few people were interested in it. But in the last year, the good news is finally members of both parties and in both houses have started to step up and take the congressional responsibility seriously. That was Senator Tim Kaine, who has introduced a resolution on the president's war powers in Iran in the Senate. And we already know that there are at least a couple Republicans who are on Kaine's side, which means that the numbers in the Senate are actually somewhat rosy looking for this to actually pass. And overall, I think that, you know, a lot of members of Congress are trying to think this stuff through and have been over the years. Yeah,

there were also some updates on the tragic crash of a Ukrainian plane in Iran. Let's talk about that for a second. Because, oh, yikes. Yeah, it's I mean, completely insane, every single development of it. So basically, over the weekend, Iran's military said that it had accidentally shot down the plane, killing 176 people that were on board. They claimed that the flight took a turn towards a military base. And given the tense situation with the United States during that time, it was hit unintentionally with a missile. American and Canadian officials already believed that this was the case but iran had said that at first the plane went down due to mechanical issues it was a boeing so i don't know if that's why they thought it would be an easy scapegoat yeah yeah um now there's still like a lot of questions that are left unanswered about this that'll probably be discovered in

the investigation according to a washington post report ukraine actually knew that the plane had been shot down even before iran made public admission. But they had this crazy thought process where they wanted to tiptoe carefully and kind of make sure that if they said that or if they revealed it, that there weren't any other heightened tensions during an already tense situation. And, you know, that also there could be cooperation with Iran and other agencies that are sort of involved in the investigation. The one thing, though, after I was reading all this that I was like really confused and shocked by is like why planes were taking off sort of willy nilly in the hours after those strikes were happening. Yeah, I mean, I think that anyone would say that if there was some sort of military conflict happening in their country, it would probably not be great to just have flights leaving from everywhere afterwards. It's just wild. Yeah, I would love to find out why that, you know, it wasn't completely called off or,

you know, whose authority that was. But yeah, a deeply unnecessary tragedy. We'll keep you updated on what is learned from the investigation and what happens in Congress. We're just a couple weeks into 2020. And the news is already moving at a breakneck speed. We have Iran, we have impeachment, we have earthquakes, we have international plane crashes, like we just discussed. And we have one story that is flying underneath the radar, Empowered by President Trump's executive order that grants local governments veto power over refugee resettlement, Texas Governor Greg Abbott is now barring new refugees from settling in Texas. That makes him the first governor to make use of Trump's executive order. So this is an extension of the Trump

administration's crackdown on legal immigration, a hallmark of the Trump administration's actions. The United States is now accepting only 18,000 refugees a year, which is the lowest level since the program began four decades ago. Can you give us a little bit more background here, though, on what refugee resettlement looks like in Texas and how we think it would change now? Yeah. So I just want to start, you know, the implications of this new decision. They're not great. Texas has led the way since 2010 in total number of refugees taken in. So without their help, the onus is going to be on other states to take in more refugees. And since the majority of these refugees are coming in through the southern border, it's likely that they'd be relocated to other southern states, none of which have the resources that Texas has. With that in mind, refusing refugees isn't just forcing them to find homes elsewhere. It also keeps refugees at a heightened risk for human trafficking. And that's according to the UNHCR.

That's the UN's refugee agency. And it should be reiterated. Refugees are not so easily entwined in the legal immigration debate. Refugees apply for status and must meet a rigorous standard to be even considered a refugee. They have to have been forced to flee their country because of persecution, war, or violence. And they have to have well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. So it does just seem especially callous to reject these individuals who've already lost everything. Yeah, I mean, people should be going out of their way to help them. And this isn't the first time that Governor Abbott has opposed settling refugees in Texas.

In 2015, he actually sued the Obama administration to stop the resettlement of Syrian refugees in the state. Yeah, I mean, boasting about how many refugees you've taken in since the end of 2010, when you tried to sue your way out of helping is a very real choice. And that's exactly what Abbott did when he wrote to the Trump administration with his refugee veto. Right. And in that lawsuit, he cited security concerns and fear that people with ties to terrorist groups were exploiting the refugee program. Well, the lawsuit was unsuccessful in court. Do you want to talk about why? Sure. In the plainest terms, those fears are entirely unfounded. No refugee terrorist has killed a single person in a terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 1976. From 1975 through the end of 2015, the annual chance of being murdered on U.S. soil in a terrorist attack committed by a refugee was a minuscule 1 in 3.64 billion per year. To put that in context, there's a 1 in 8 million chance that I would be murdered by a shark in America this year. And the beach is still super popular. I'm there, you know, when I can be.

We're there right now. Yeah, we are basically at the beach. Yeah. So maybe, you know, Abbott should have spent his time on a real risk and, you know, sued to outlaw sharks instead. I don't know. Yeah. Jaws 7. This time it's dolphins. Well, according to leaders from the National Immigration Forum citing a 2015 study by New American Economy, refugees in Texas had a combined spending power of $4.6 billion and paid a total of $1.6 billion in taxes. So, you know, even if a moral argument isn't your cup of tea, any red-blooded American capitalist would agree that banning refugees is a bad idea. I wish that were the case with red-blooded American capitalists, but as we're revealing in this, it's clearly not. So what is next, though? Is this decision actually going to stand in Texas? So the decision might not be final, which is a big relief.

Governor Abbott's veto that resulted in banning new refugees could be reversed as soon as next week when a federal judge in Maryland is expected to rule on whether Trump exceeded his authority with that refugee executive order. So now that case, you know, it's obviously going to have a lot more at stake. And we are continuing to follow this story. We're going to let you know what happens with that Maryland federal judge's ruling. Let's wrap up with some headlines. Headlines. Another massive earthquake hit Puerto Rico over the weekend. The 5.9 magnitude aftershock struck on Saturday while the island was still recovering from the major 6.4 earthquake last week.

Experts say there may be more aftershocks to come. Local officials are skeptical about FEMA's ability to deliver funds on time, which is reasonable, considering Puerto Rico is still waiting on federal funds from Hurricane Maria in 2017. The events over the weekend coincided with the 10-year anniversary of another disaster in the region, the massive 7.0 earthquake that hit Haiti in 2010 and killed an estimated 220,000 people and displaced over a million. The earthquake there lasted only 30 seconds, but the country is still rebuilding from the critical state it was left in. If you want to donate to help the ongoing recovery efforts in Puerto Rico, the Hispanic Federation is a good place to start.

Quick impeachment update faster than a news blast. Last week, we thought the impeachment trial in the Senate could finally get underway this week. Well, wouldn't you know it now it's looking like it might be a little bit later than that. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says that she's meeting with House Democrats on Tuesday to talk about when to vote on the impeachment managers or the House managers. Same diff. You understand. The trial could theoretically still begin on Wednesday, but staffers are saying it might not kick off until next week. In southern Texas, a group of 300 vultures are fighting back against Customs and Border Patrol in an extremely heavy metal way by peeing, pooping and puking on a 320-foot radio tower that the agency uses to communicate. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the vultures throw up,

quote, a reeking and corrosive vomit that slowly destroys the towers and makes them more difficult for maintenance workers to climb. And since the vultures are a protected species, all CBP can do is work on plans to build a big net around the tower and hope the vultures will leave them alone. Shout out to these birds for spitting up for what they believe in. Think global, puke local. The vultures are Antifa. The NFL's championship

games are set with the San Francisco 49ers, Tennessee Titans, Kansas City Chiefs and Green Bay Packers all advancing. Four cities, none of them exist in Ohio. In other sports news, Serena Williams recently won New Zealand's ASB Classic this Sunday, her first title since she became a mom three years ago. She celebrated in the way all true champions do,

by giving away all $43,000 of her winnings to Australian Bushfire Relief. Williams will also play in a charity match called the Australian Open Rally for Relief this Wednesday for the same cause. Don't let anyone fool you. An athlete's strongest muscle is her heart. Sorry to Netflix's The Crown, but we are full up on royal family drama. Today, Queen Elizabeth is holding a family meeting of some sort at her estate in Sandringham, England.

People are literally calling it the Sandringham Showdown. I don't know if they're saying it like that. That's how I'm going to say it. To figure out what's next for Prince Harry and Duchess Meghan, they'll be discussing what royal duties the couple will hang on to and how they'll split their time between North America and the UK and how they're going to make money. My advice, Bitcoin trading. As one extremely British commentator put it, for Harry and Meghan, the coming months will provide a forceful reality check and there may well be tears before bedtime.

Just how everyone says that phrase. Classic tears before bedtime moment. Yeah, I guess that's an English thing. And those are the headlines. That's all for today. If you like the show, make sure you subscribe, leave a review, give us a rating, make us a mixtape that says what words cannot, and tell your friends to listen. By the way, if you're into reading and not just wet books like me,

What A Day is also a nightly newsletter. Check it out and subscribe at crooked.com slash subscribe. I'm Akilah Hughes. I'm Gideon Resnick. And that's how to do grassroots political action with reeking and corrosive vomit. Ew. God bless those vultures and their sick little tummies. What A Day is a product of Crooked Media. It's recorded and mixed by Charlotte Landis.

Sonia Tunn is our assistant producer. Our head writer is John Milstein, and our senior producer is Katie Long. Our theme music is by Colin Gilliard and Kashaka.