WSJ report is extraordinary in implicating Mar-a-Lago in Epstein systematic sexual abuse.
It takes a close read, but looks like WSJ is reporting Trump was informed and told Mar-a-Lago manager to "kick out" Epstein in 2003 not from Mar-a-Lago, but from the Mar-a-Lago Spa.
With Admiral Bradley's lawyer speaking to Congress this upcoming week.
Threshold question is how ANY of these strikes are legal.
On Sept 2 strike: Q is whether they applied standard Collateral Damage Estimation Methodology.
Because look what it says (declassified 2012)⤵️ 1/
2/ The Collateral Damage Estimation Methodology goes to the heart of the latest DoD claims about the strike.
The claim is that the second strike was targeting the (possible) cocaine, not the shipwrecked.
I do not see how that could have possibly complied with the Methodology.
3/ As shown in the screen shot, the Methodology states:
The laws of war (LOW) require anticipated "noncombatant" deaths must not be excessive in relation to expected military advantage to be gained (the possible cocaine).
"The Senate Armed Services Committee ... has asked Adm. Alvin Holsey ... to testify before the committee next week, according to Blumenthal and another person familiar with the matter."
3/ "A spokesperson for Rep. Adam Smith (Washington), the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said that panel also requested briefings with U.S. Southern Command, though not with Holsey specifically."
How is U.S. military killing these 11 people keeping drugs (fentanyl) out of the United States?
DOD knew the drugs (cocaine) were headed to Suriname.
Yes, that's the OTHER DIRECTION.
Read what Bradley-Caine told lawmakers:
Scoop by @NatashaBertrand
🧵 1/
2/ Problems for Bradley's credibility.
On left:
Bradley argued to lawmakers "still a possibility" drugs could've made way to US.
On right:
Trump State Dept: "Suriname is a transit country for South American cocaine, the majority of which is likely destined for Europe."
3/ And, yes, the administration's attempted constitutional and other legal claims unravel if boats are delivering drugs (let alone, cocaine not fentanyl) to Europe instead.
The 2 survivors climbed atop wreckage and waved to overhead.
"Some of the people viewing the video thought ... could have been an attempt to surrender"
Others "said the most logical explanation was ... signaling for a rescue."
1/
2/ What Adm. Bradley and Gen. Caine told Congress raises credibility concerns.
"The military officers briefing Congress on Thursday said the survivors could have been trying to beckon to other alleged drug traffickers in a plane or boat to come get them...."
But get this ...
3/
"But some lawmakers viewing the video rejected that interpretation. There were no other unknown aircraft or boats in visual range, and no other boats involved in drug trafficking could have rescued them."
And even worse, if I am understanding this logic correctly, ...
🚨🚨🚨This collapses the one 'argument' Hegseth had against it being war crime:
"Two men killed as they floated holding onto their capsized boat .. DID NOT APPEAR TO HAVE RADIO OR OTHER COMMUNICATIONS DEVICES, the top military official overseeing the strike told lawmakers."
1/
2/ Secretary Hegseth bears ultimate responsibility as the designated Target Engagement Authority.
And recall how many times he has said Admiral Bradley acted within the authority Hegseth gave him, and that Bradley made "the correct" decision.
3/ It looks like DoD officials previously made false statements to Congress:
"As far back as September, defense officials have been quietly pushing back on criticism that killing the two survivors amounted to a war crime by arguing, in part, that they were legitimate targets because they appeared to be radioing for help or backup ... Defense officials made that claim in at least one briefing in September for congressional staff."